C    0   ;\  • 


1 


THniv>er9ft£  of  Pennsylvania 


WOODROW  WILSON'S 
POLITICAL  IDEALS 

AS  INTERPRETED  FROM  HIS  WORKS 


BY 


WILLIAM  WILEY  HOLLINGSWORTH 

t\\ 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL 

IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
PRINCETON 
1918 


IOAN  STA< 


CONTEXTS 
Preface    v 

Chapter  I,   Beginning  and  Early  Development  of  Gov 
ernment   I 

Chapter  1 1,  Constitutional  Government 6 

Chapter  III,  Democracy 14 

Chapter  IV,  Sovereignty   19 

Chapter  V,  Liberty 23 

Chapter  VI,  Leadership 35 

Bibliography  48 


657 


r  7? 


657 


PREFACE 

Woodrow  Wilson  had  been  a  careful  student  and  successful 
teacher  of  History  and  Politics  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a 
century  before  he  came  into  public  life.  Although  he  has 
written  extensively  in  both  of  these  fields,  little  is  known  of 
his  political  thought  and  its  place  in  political  philosophy. 
Therefore,  it  seems  proper  to  present  an  analysis  of  his  po 
litical  views  in  order  that  his  profound  influence  on  American 
political  life  may  be  more  fully  appreciated. 

There  is  an  intimate  connection  between  the  principles  of 
Wilson's  political  philosophy  and  his  statesmanship  and  leader 
ship.  In  order  to  emphasize  that  thought,  the  first  four  chap 
ters  and  part  of  the  fifth  have  been  devoted  to  an  outline  of 
his  political  thought  and  the  remainder  of  the  thesis  to  the  ap 
plication  of  these  principles.  It  is  too  early  to  judge  of  his 
leadership  in  the  Great  War  but  as  to  his  domestic  policies 
there  is  sufficient  evidence  upon  which  to  form  a  reasonable 
conclusion. 

In  this  dissertation  I  have  shown: 

First,  that  Wilson's  presentation  of  constitutional  govern 
ment  is  unique  both  in  definition  and  analysis.  He  has  ap 
proached  the  subject  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  object  of 
government.  Thus  he  defines  a  Constitutional  Government  as 
one  which  adapts  its  powers  to  the  interests  of  the  people 
and  safeguards  the  rights  of  the  individual. 

Second,  that  he  has  presented  the  principles  of  a  modern 
democracy,  not  a  theoretical  but  a  practical  democracy,  as 
based  on  experience  and  political  development;  and  has  dem 
onstrated  that  liberty  in  the  final  analysis  is  the  proper  func 
tioning  of  a  democracy. 

Third,  that  he  has  pointed  out  with  his  characteristic  clear 
ness  the  paramount  importance  of  leadership  in  the  successful 
operation  of  government,  as  opposed  to  form  of  organization 
which  most  writers  emphasize. 

The  first  chapter,  dealing  with  the  origin  of  government,  is 
not  an  essential  part  of  the  political  philosophy  of  Woodrow 
Wilson,  but  it  is  included  for  the  sake  of  completeness  and 


because  he  has  nowhere  in  his  writings  or  speeches  repudiated 
his  early  views  of  the  origin  of  government  and  the  state  as 
presented  in  his  text-book,  "The  State,"  published  in  1889. 
At  that  time  the  patriarchal  theory  of  the  origin  of  government 
prevailed  with  political  writers.  As  he  himself  admits  he 
adopted  this  view  from  Sir  Henry  Maine.  There  has  since 
developed  a  school  of  writers  who  questioned  this  theory, 
claiming  that  the  conclusions  of  Sir  Henry  Maine  were  not 
based  on  adequate  data.  Among  these  are  L.  H.  Morgan  and 
J.  F.  McLennan  who  advocate  the  priority  of  the  matriarchal 
and  group  units  over  the  patriarchal  in  political  organization. 
Professor  George  E.  Howard  in  his  "A  History  of  Matri 
monial  Institutions,"  an  elaborate  work  of  three  volumes,  pub 
lished  in  1904,  shows  that  neither  of  these  theories  can  be  uni 
versally  true,  but  that  local  conditions  must  have  very  largely 
determined  the  form  of  the  primitive  unit  of  organization. 
The  works  of  McLennan  and  Morgan  were  doubtless  well 
known  to  Mr.  Wilson  when  he  first  wrote  "The  State,"  but 
the  work  of  Howard  possibly  was  not  considered  by  him  in 
his  last  edition  of  the  "The  State"  which  appeared  in  1904,  the 
year  of  the  publication  of  Howard's  work.  At  any  rate,  Wil 
son  has  not  modified  the  view  adopted  from  Maine  in  1889. 

The  source  material  used  in  the  preparation  of  this  study  is 
indicated  in  the  footnotes  and  in  the  appended  bibliography. 
The  matter  there  listed  has  been  carefully  examined,  and 
where  it  seemed  that  its  contribution  to  Wilson's  philosophy 
was  significant  it  has  been  referred  to  in  footnotes.  No  at 
tempt  has  been  made  to  consider  all  the  views  of  others  upon 
the  acts  and  writings  of  Wilson,  but  the  leading  authorities 
who  have  written  intimately  of  Wilson's  career  have  been 
consulted. 

The  writer  wishes  to  acknowledge  his  indebtedness  to  Pro 
fessor  James  Curtis  Ballagh  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
whose  untiring  interest,  patient  direction  and  stimulating  sug 
gestions  made  possible  the  writing  of  this  dissertation. 


WOODROW  WILSON'S  POLITICAL  IDEALS  AS  IN 
TERPRETED  FROM  HIS  WORKS 

CHAPTER  I 
BEGINNING  AND  EARLY  DEVELOPMENT  OF  GOVERNMENT 

Wilson  is  a  firm  supporter  of  the  patriarchal  theory  of  the 
origin  of  government.  He  accepts  this  theory  because  it  af 
fords  the  most  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  intimate  con 
nection  the  origin  of  government  must  have  had  with  the 
early  history  of  the  family.  In  the  patriarchal  family  the 
father  was  the  soufce  of  all  authority  and  exercised  govern 
mental  discipline.  Such  discipline  would  scarcely  be  possible 
where  a  clearly  defined  blood-relationship  was  lacking.  A 
rigidly  defined  blood-relationship  was  the  basis  of  organiza 
tion  and  therefore  of  authority.  "In  every  case,  it  would 
seem,  the  origination  of  what  we  should  deem  worthy  of  the 
name  of  government  must  have  awaited  the  development  of 
some  such  definite  family  as  that  in  which  the  father  was 
known,  and  known  as  ruler.  Whether  or  not  the  patriarchal 
family  was  the  first  form  of  the  family,  it  must  have  furnished 
the  first  adequate  form  of  government."1  Therefore  it  may 
be  assumed  that  "The  family  was  the  primal  unit  of  political 
society,  and  the  seed  bed  of  all  larger  growths  of  govern 
ment."2  The  individuals  that  constituted  these  earliest  com 
munities  were  not  individual  men,  but  were  individual  fami 
lies;  and  the  organization  of  these  families,  whether  singly  or 
in  groups,  furnished  the  ideas  in  which  political  society  took 
its  root.  The  members  of  each  family  were  bound  together 
by  kinship.  The  father  was  supreme  and  his  authority  had 

1  Wilson,  The  State,  13;  cf.  Maine,  Ancient  Law,  122;  Sidgwick, 
Development  of  European  Polity,  Chaps.  11-111;  Jenks,  History  of 
Politics,  Chap.  Ill;  Freeman,  Comparative  Politics,  Lecture  II.  For  a 
critical  treatment  of  this  theory,  see  McLennan,  The  Patriarchal 
Theory.  For  general  discussion  see  Garner,  Introduction  to  Political 
Science,  114-119;  Gertell,  Problems  in  Political  Evolution,  84-87. 

•Wilson,  The  State,  13;  Fowler,  City  State  of  Greeks  and  Romans, 
Chap.  II. 


for  its  sanction  the  fact  that  he  was  regarded  as  the  fountain- 
head  of  the  common  blood-relationship.  Any  man  outside 
this  closely  organized  group  of  kinsmen  was  an  alien  and  an 
enemy. 

When  society  grew  from  the  family  to  the  larger  group,  the 
gciis  or  House  and  to  the  still  larger  group,  the  Tribe,  and 
finally  to  the  commonwealth,  kinship  was  still  the  bond  that 
united  the  people.3  In  this  natural  widening  and  broader  de 
velopment,  there  came  a  time  when  there  was  no  grandfather, 
great-grandfather,  or  other  patriarch  to  maintain  society  in 
domestic  oneness;  but  it  would  not  separate.  The  extinct 
authority  of  the  actual  ancestor  was  replaced  by  the  authority 
of  some  selected  elder,  the  oldest  living  ascendent  of  the 
group,  or  the  one  most  capable.  Here  were  the  materials  of 
a  complete  body  politic  held  together  by  the  old  fibre  of  actual 
kinship.4 

Another  practice  which  prevailed  among  the  earliest  com 
munities  was  that  of  adoption,  which  \vas  a  "ready,  and  im 
memorial  fiction,"  but  to  the  thought  of  that  time  it  seemed 
no  fiction  at  all.5  The  adopted  man  or  family,  as  the  case 
might  be,  was  as  truly  a  part  of  the  community  as  if  "natural- 
born."  "In  this  development  kinship  and  religion  operated  as 
the  two  chief  formative  influences.  Religion  seems  in  most 
instances  to  have  been  at  first  only  the  expression  of  kinship. 
The  central  and  most  sacred  worship  of  each  group  of  men, 
whether  family  or  tribe,  was  the  worship  of  ancestors.  At  the 
family  or  communal  altar  the  worshipper  came  into  the  pres 
ence  of  the  shades  of  the  great  dead  of  his  family  or  race. 
To  them  he  did  homage ;  from  them  he  craved  protection  and 
guidance.  The  adopted  man,  therefore,  when  received  into 
the  hallowed  communion  with  the  gods  of  the  family,  accepted 
its  fathers  as  his  own,  and  took  upon  himself  the  most  solemn 
duties  and  acquired  the  most  sacred  privileges  of  kinship.  So, 
too,  of  the  family  adopted  into  the  gens,  or  the  gens  received 
into  the  tribe.  The  new  group  accepted  the  ancestors  by  ac 
cepting  the  worship  of  the  adopting  House  or  community. 
Religion  was  thus  quite  inseparably  linked  with  kinship.  It 
may  be  said  to  have  been  the  thought  of  which  kinship  was 
the  embodiment.  It  was  the  sign  and  the  seal  of  the  common 

•Maine,  Ancient  Law,   128;  Jcnks,  Hist,  of  Politics,   19. 

4  Wilson,  The  State,  14. 

5  Hearn,  The  Aryan  Household,  27,  104. 


blood,  the  expression  of  its  oneness,  its  sanctity,  its  obligations. 
He  who  had  entered  into  the  bonds  of  this  religion  had,  there 
fore,  entered  into  the  heart  of  kinship  and  taken  of  its  life- 
blood.  His  blood-relationship  was  thus  rendered  no  fiction 
at  all  to  the  thought  of  that  day,  but  a  solemn  verity,  to  which 
every  religious  ceremonial  bore  impressive  witness."6 

The  results  of  such  a  system  of  life  and  thought  were  most 
momentous.  The  ancestor  of  the  primitive  man  became  a  god 
of  undying  power  whose  spirit  lived  to  bless  or  to  curse.7  To 
depart  from  the  practices  of  these  potent  ancestors  was  to  run 
in  the  face  of  the  deities.  Precedent  was  under  such  circum 
stances  imperative.  "Precedent  of  course  soon  aggregated 
into  custom — such  custom  as  it  is  now  scarcely  possible  to 
conceive  of — a  supreme,  uniform,  imperious,  infrangible  rule 
of  life  which  brought  within  its  inexorable  commands  every 
detail  of  daily  conduct."8 

This  reign  of  stiff  customary  law  was  long  and  decisive; 
the  family  was  a  despotism,  society  a  routine.  "Superstition 
strengthened  every  cord  and  knot  of  the  network  of  obser 
vance  which  bound  men  to  the  practice  of  their  fathers  and 
their  neighbors."9  Among  all  races  the  tendency  has  been  for 
custom  to  become  fixed  in  a  crust  too  solid  ever  to  be  broken. 
The  majority  of  mankind  has  either  remained  under  the  tyr 
anny  of  this  inexorable  custom  or  has  advanced  only  to  a 
caste  system  where  the  reign  of  unchanging  hereditary  classes 
has  crystallized  society  into  fixed  strata.  In  other  words 
among  the  peoples  of  the  world,  stagnation  has  been  the  rule, 
progress  the  exception.10 

How  did  it  come  about  that  some  men%  progressed  while 
most  did  not?  "In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  probable  that  all 
the  groups  of  men  in  that  early  time  had  the  same  customs. 
Custom  was  doubtless  as  flexible  and  malleable  in  its  infancy 
as  it  was  inflexible  and  changeless  in  its  old  age.  In  propor 
tion  as  group  separated  from  group  in  the  restless  days  of  the 
nomadic  life,  custom  would  become  differentiated  from  cus 
tom.  Then,  after  first  being  the  cause,  isolation  would  be 
come  the  natural  result  of  differences  of  life  and  belief.  A 
family  or  tribe  which  had  taken  itself  apart  and  built  up  a 

•  Wilson,  The  State,  11$ ;  cf.  Hearn,  The  Aryan  Household,  105,  107. 

T  Hearn,  The  Aryan  Household,  39. 

•Wilson,  The  State,  15-16. 

•Ibid.,   16;  Jenks,  History  of  Politics,  22. 

10  Maine,  History  of  Institutions,  232. 

3 


practice  and  opinion  all  its  own  would  thereby  have  made  it 
self  irrevocably  a  stranger  to  its  one-time  kinsmen  of  other 
tribes.  When  its  life  did  touch  their  life,  it  would  touch  to 
clash,  and  not  to  harmonize  or  unite.  There  would  be  a  Tro 
jan  war.  The  Greeks  had  themselves  come,  it  may  be,  from 
these  very  coasts  of  Asia  Minor;  the  Trojans  were  perhaps 
their  forgotten  and  now  alien  kinsmen.  Greeks,  Romans, 
Celts,  had  probably  once  been  a  single  people ;  but  how  unlike 
did  they  become!"11  In  this  clash  and  competition  of  customs, 
the  most  serviceable  prevailed.  But  as  on  the  one  hand  con 
tact  and  competition  between  the  customs  of  different  groups 
meant  the  most  serviceable  would  survive  and  the  result  would 
be  progress,  just  so  on  the  onther  hand,  isolation  meant  stag 
nation.  The  world  is  full  of  instances  of  isolation  and  accord 
ingly  abounds  in  stagnated  nationalities.  The  great  caste  na 
tions  are  examples.12 

It  is  easy  to  imagine  that  there  was  a  rapid  and  striking 
change  in  the  customs  of  the  races  which  migrated  and  com 
peted  in  the  West.  Not  only  was  there  the  factor  of  the  pre 
dominance  of  the  best  custom  but  also  the  potent  factor  of  a 
change  of  scene  and  circumstance.  The  Greeks  may  be  re 
garded  as  a  type  of  the  transformation  that  took  place  in 
those  early  days.  They  came  down  to  the  sea  from  Asia 
Minor  and  gradually  worked  their  way  across  to  what  became 
their  permanent  home.  And  they  reached  this  country  changed 
men,  more  adventurous,  more  skillful,  and  with  a  broader 
vision  of  life.  Not  only  the  changes  of  circumstance  and  the 
exigencies  of  new  conditions  of  life,  but  also  the  conquests 
necessarily  incident  to  those  days  of  migration  must  have 
wrought  changes  to  the  conquerors  as  well  as  to  the  con 
quered.18 

There  must  also  have  been  among  the  less  successful  races 
a  powerful  tendency  toward  imitation  of  their  more  success 
ful  neighbors  and  rivals.  But  however  powerful  this  impulse 
toward  imitation  as  between  group  and  group,  in  times  of  mi 
gration  and  conquest,  there  was  offered  these  pioneers  oppor 
tunity  and  inducement  for  individual  initiative.  With  indi 
vidual  initiative  permitted  a  voice,  the  soil  was  made  fertile 

"Wilson,  The  State,  18. 

"Hobhouse,  Social  Evolution  and  Political  Theory,  163-164;  Bage- 
hot,  Physics  and  Politics,  Chap.  II. 
"Wilson,  The  State,  21. 


for  the  change  of  institutions,  and  consequently  change  in  the 
constitution  of  government.  It  is  likely  that  in  the  selection 
of  a  chieftain  of  the  race,  a  distinct  element  of  choice — of 
election — must  have  crept  in  at  a  very  early  period.  ''The 
oldest  male  of  the  hitherto  reigning  family  was  no  longer 
chosen  as  of  course,  but  the  wisest  or  bravest.  It  was  even 
open  to  the  national  choice  to  go  upon  occasion  altogether  out 
side  this  succession  and  choose  a  leader  of  force  and  resource 
from  some  other  family."14  Although  the  group  continued  to 
be  regarded  as  a  family,  the  head  of  this  huge  complex  family 
ceased  to  be  natural  and  became  political.  The  state  at  last 
had  come  to  dominate  the  family.  "It  often  fell  out  that  a 
son,  absolutely  subject  to  his  father  in  the  family,  was  by 
election  made  master  of  his  father  outside  the  family,  in  the 
state."15 

Enough  has  been  said  to  indicate  "how  custom  crystallized 
about  the  primitive  man;  how  in  the  case  of  the  majority  of 
mankind  it  preserved  itself  against  all  essential  change;  how 
with  the  favored  minority  of  the  race  it  was  broken  by  war, 
altered  by  imperative  circumstances,  modified  by  imitation,  and 
infringed  by  individual  initiative ;  how  change  resulted  in  pro 
gress;  and  how,  at  last,  kinsmen  became  fellow-citizens."18 

"Ibid.,  23;  cf.  Jenks,  History  of  Politics,  36. 

15  Wilson,  The  State,  23. 

16  Ibid.,  23-24. 


CHAPTER  II 

CONSTITUTIONAL  GOVERNMENT 

Wilson  assumes  that  Government  has  passed  through^four  ^ 
stages  and  forms  of  development.    A  first  stage  in  which  the 
go  ve  rmrienMva  slib^olute  jiiaste  r  and  tlie  people  veritable  sub-  5/i 
jects;  a  second  in  which  the  government  was  master  not  be- 
but  by  virtue  of  insight  and  fitness  to 


Jead;  a  third  in  which  both  force  and  fitness  had  failed  the 
government  and  it  found  itself  facejo  face  with  the  leaders  of 
the'  people,  a  period  of  agitation  and  sure  signs  of  great 
change;  and  a  ipn&h  in  which  the  leaders  of  the  people  be 
came.  the_j^vernment_,and  the  development  was  complete.1 

The  first  stage,  when  the  government  was  absolute  master  — 
is  one  at  which  there  is  among  the  people  no  consciousness  of 
a  community  of  interest,  no  feeling  of  oneness,  no  idea  of  a 
common  purpose  ;  they  know  no  interest  of  their  own  op 
posed  to  the  interest  of  the  government,  or  if  they  do,  it  is 
vague  and  unreal,  and  they  know  no  means  of  realizing  their 
wish  —  a  mass  speechless  and  powerless  politically.  The  gov 
ernment  may  be  said  to  have  been  master  in  the  early  Ger 
manic  feudal  nation  which  occupied  the  European  field  after 
the  break-up  of  the  Roman  Empire  and  in  the  developed  feudal 
nation  —  for  example,  France  under  Louis  XIV;  and  also  in 
the  nations  which  have  been  conquered  by  some  foreign  mili 
tary  class  or  race  who  have  retained  their  hold  upon  them  by 
organized  force,  as  in  China  and  Russia.  A  population  which 
is  ruled  by  a  limited  class  who  are  its  conquerors  is  apt  to 
stand  still  until  its  polity  rots,  as  in  Russia.  The  nation  which 
is  most  likely  to  linger  until  it  stagnates  is  the  caste  nation; 
some  irresistible  force  coming  from  the  outside  seems  neces 
sary  for  relief  from  the  crust  of  inexorable  custom.  A  mili 
tary  nation  is  too  full  of  stir  to  stand  still  long  in  its  first  stage 
of  development.2 

This  first  stage  is  a  stage  of  social  development  ;  the  second 

1  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States,  28. 
*  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States,  28-29. 


stage — when  the  ruler  was  leader  as  well  as  master — is  a  stage 
of  political  development.  In  the  first  stage  "society  is  asleep, 
is  unformed,  inorganic,  without  self-consciousness  and  with 
out  knowledge  of  its  own  interest  and  power.  What  is  lack 
ing  is  the  birth  of  a  national  consciousness  and  self-knowl 
edge."  When  the  second  stage  comes  the  nation  has  become 
aware  of  itself;  there  is  a  feeling  of  the  community  of  inter 
est,  a  national  consciousness.  A  nation  at  this  stage  is  led  by 
a  self-constituted  leader,  but  a  leader  and  statesman  who  is  a 
suitable  embodiment  of  the  nation,  as  was  the  case  of  Eliza 
beth  in  England  and  Frederick  the  Great  in  Prussia.  It  is 
too  early  in  the  development  of  the  nation  for  it  to  express 
itself  in  men  chosen  from  its  own  ranks.3 

•When  a  nation  develops  to  that  stage  where  it  has  a  na 
tional  consciousness,  it  is  no  easy  matter,  in  fact,  it  is  next  to 
impossible  for  a  government  not  derived  from  the  people  to 
retain  a  sympathetic  comprehension  adequate  for  leadership. 
Events  take  place  which  stir  up  common  convictions  amidst 
all  ranks  and  kinds  of  men.  The  nation  passes  into  the  third 
stage — that  of  agitation  when  it  is  a  struggle  between  the 
leaders  of  the  people  and  the  irresponsible  self-constituted 
rulers  to  determine  which  will  shape  the  policies  and  direct 
the  government.  It  is  at  this  stage  when  average  men  begin 
to  know  their  rights  and  demand  political  recognition.  Spokes 
men  and  leaders  arise  as  a  matter  of  course  and  whether  the 
struggle  is  short  or  long,  the  result  will  finally  be  essentially 
the  same;  "the  people's  leaders  themselves  will  take  control 
of  the  government  as  they  have  done  in  England,  in  Switzer 
land,  in  America,  in  France,  in  Scandinavia,  and  in  Italy,  and 
as  they  will  yet  do  in  every  other  country  whose  polity  ful 
fils  the  promise  of  the  modern  time."  There  is  established  a 
new  understanding  between  the  governors  and  the  governed. 
Agreements  to  new  practices,  which  are  new  institutions,  are 
made;  and  the  nation  enters  the  fourth  stage — that  stage  in 
which  the  people's  chosen  leaders  are  the  government.4 

When  this  final  stage  is  reached,  the  people  know  their  in 
terests,  their  political  force,  and  are  actually  accustomed  to 
choosing  and  following  their  own  leaders  as  the  natural  thing. 
The  leaders  of  the  people  take  charge  of  the  government  and 
the  form  of  government  that  is  likely  to  result  is  either  the 

•  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States,  30-35. 
4  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States,  36-40. 


parliamentary  English  form  or  the  American  Presidential 
form.6 

\YiIson  calls  this  fourth  stage  that  of  constitutional  govern 
ment.  But  why  does  he  call  a  government  in  this  stage  of  de 
velopment  constitutional?  Is  a  constitutional  government  one 
that  is  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  a  written  con 
stitution?  If  so,  look  at  the  governments  of  the  United  States, 
of  Japan,  and  of  Mexico,  and  select  a  representative  type.  If 
the  government  of  England,  which  has  no  written  constitution, 
is  regarded  as  the  most  famous  of  all  constitutional  govern 
ments,  what  shall  we  say  about  Turkey?  With  these  facts 
before  one,  it  is  only  too  obvious  that  in  order  to  get  a  clear 
understanding  of  what  constitutes  a  constitutional  government, 
the  term  constitutional  must  be  defined.  No  one  has  yet  de 
fined  it  quite  so  concisely  as  has  Wilson  himself.  "A  consti 
tutional  government  is  one  whose  powers  have  been  adapted  to 
the  interests  of  its  people  and  to  the  maintenance  of  individual 
liberty."6  It  is  a  government  conducted  upon  the  basis  of  a 
definite  understanding  between  those  who  are  to  submit  to  it 
and  those  who  are  to  conduct  it,  an  understanding  between 
the  people  and  their  own  chosen  leaders;  a  government  that 
has  always  in  view  the  general  welfare  and  especially  the  safe 
guarding  of  individual  liberty.  The  general  welfare  is  assured 
and  the  liberty  of  the  individual  is  guaranteed  by  virtue  of  the 
fact  that  the  government  is  conducted  by  the  people  through 
their  leaders. 

"The  object,"  he  says,  "of  constitutional  government  is  to 
bring  the  active,  planning  will  of  each  part  of  the  government 
into  accord  with  the  prevailing  popular  thought  and  need,  and 
thus  make  it  an  impartial  instrument  of  symmetrical  national 
development;  and  to  give  to  the  operation  of  the  government 
thus  shaped  under  the  influence  of  opinion  and  adjusted  to  the 
general  interest  both  stability  and  an  incorruptible  efficacy."7 
In  other  words  the  object  of  constitutional  government  is  the 
maintenance  of  a  proper  adjustment  between  the  power  of  the 
government  and  the  privilege  of  the  individual.  And  since 
government  is  a  living,  growing  organism,  is  a  part  of  life 
and,  with  life,  must  change  both  in  its  objects  and  practices 
there  is  but  one  thing  that  will  remain  constant,  that  is,  the 

8  Ibid,  40. 

•  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  2. 

T  Ibid.,  14. 


opportunity  for  adjustment.  Whatever  institutions  and  prac 
tices,  legal  or  extra-legal,  assist  in  the  realization  of  the  ob 
jects  of  constitutional  government  are  necessary  to  such  a 
system;  and  those  institutions  and  practices  which  do  not  so 
assist,  or  which  serve  it  imperfectly,  should  be  dispensed  with 
or  improved.  The  history  of  constitutional  government  has 
been  an  experimental  search  for  the  best  means  by  which  to 
effect  these  nice  adjustments.8 

Keeping  in  mind  that  a  constitutional  government  is  one 
conducted  on  the  basis  of  a  definite  understanding  between  those 
who  administer  it  and  those  who  obey  it,  it  is  obvious  that, 
for  a  people  to  have  such  a  system  of  government,  that  people 
must  constitute  a  community.  A  community  may  be  defined 
as  a  body  of  people  who  have  a  distinct  consciousness  of  com 
mon  ties  and  interests,  a  common  manner  and  standard  of  life 
and  conduct,  and  a  practised  habit  of  union  and  concerted  ac 
tion  in  whatever  affects  it  as  a  whole.9  Certainly  no  people 
that  is  not  clearly  conscious  of  common  interests  and  of  com 
mon  standards  of  life  and  happiness,  and  which  has  not  a 
common  purpose,  can  come  to  any  agreement  with  its  gov 
ernment  ;  and  no  people  which  has  not  a  habit  of  union  and 
which  is  not  capable  of  the  most  concerted  action  can  secure 
itself  against  the  breach  of  such  an  agreement  if  it  exists.10 
There  must  be  a  common  thought,  common  interests  and  a 
common  purpose  in  order  to  reach  an  agreement  with  the  gov 
ernment;  and  in  order  to  enforce  this  agreement  with  the 
government,  the  people  must  present  a  solid  front. 

Not  all  communities  having  a  constitutional  government 
will  have  the  same  form  of  governmental  organization.  No 
two  people  can  be  expected  to  succeed  by  the  same  means  un 
less  those  means  equally  suit  their  character  and  stage  of  de 
velopment.  Every  community  has  its  peculiar  institutions  and 
practices,  and  these  institutions  must  be  the  expression  of  its 
training  and  experience.11  But  whatever  the  polity  may  be, 
it  should  be  such  as  will  attract  the  best  characters  into  the 
public  service  an^  inspire  in  the  individual  the  habit  and  spirit 
of  civic  duty.12 

Constitutional  government  is  the  one  form  of  government 

8  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  14. 
•Ibid.,  26,  51. 

10  Ibid.,  26. 

11  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  87,  p.  289. 

12  Ibid.,  vol.  90,  p.  733. 


that  exalts  the  individual  and  throws  him  upon  his  own  re 
sources,1'  thus  giving  the  best  opportunity  for  and  insuring 
the  highest  degree  of  individual  self-development,  which  is 
itself  the  ultimate  object  of  society.14  The  government  trusts 
him  to  sec  and  seek  his  own  rights.  He  is  not  a  ward  of  the 
government  but  his  own  guardian.  Such  an  attitude  presup 
poses  both  intelligence  and  independence  of  spirit  on  the  part 
of  the  individual,  and  such  a  system  stimulates  intelligence 
and  creates  independence  of  spirit.  The  fact,  that  he  is  re 
quired  to  seek  his  court  and  know  his  remedy  is  all  that  is 
necessary  in  addition  to  his  natural  impulses  and  desires  to 
give  him  the  attitude  and  habit  of  a  free  man.15  This  point  is 
further  emphasized  by  the  fact  that  the  officers  of  the  govern 
ment,  especially  in  the  United  States  and  England,  which  are 
the  countries  that  have  reached  the  most  advanced  stage  in 
constitutional  development,16  have  no  authority  except  such 
as  they  derive  from  the  law,  from  the  regulations  agreed  on 
between  the  government  and  those  \vho  are  governed.  An 
officer  who  violates  the  law  transgresses  the  very  fundamental 
presumptions  of  the  system  and  thereby  becomes  a  law 
breaker,  enjoying  no  privileges  or  exemption.17  Thus  from 
the  very  outset  of  modern  constitutional  history  it  has  invari 
ably  been  recognized  as  one  of  the  essentials  of  constitutional 
government  that  the  individual  should  be  provided  with  some 
tribunal  to  which  he  could  resort  with  confident  expectations 
of  there  securing  justice,  not  only  as  against  other  individuals 
but  also  justice  against  the  government  itself — a  perfect  pro 
tection  against  all  violations  of  the  law.18 

Constitutional  government  is  distinctly  a  government  of 
law.  This  does  not  mean  that  constitutional  government  is 
one  of  law  and  not  of  men.  For  no  matter  how  they  are 
constituted,  governments  are  always  governments  of  men,  and 
no  part  of  any  government  is  any  better  than  the  men  to 
whom  that  part  is  intrusted.  "The  guage  of  excellence  is  not 
the  law  under  which  officers  act,  but  the  conscience  and  intel 
ligence  with  which  they  apply  it,  if  they  apply  it  at  all.  The 

18  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  19. 

14  The  State,  633. 

1»Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  19. 

UAn  Old  Master  and  other  Political  Essays,  118. 

lf  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  20. 

"Ibid.,  16-17. 

IO 


courts  do  not  escape  the  rule.  So  far  as  the  individual  is  con 
cerned,  a  constitutional  government  is  as  good  as  its  courts; 
no  better,  no  worse.  Its  laws  are  only  its  professions.  It 
keeps  its  promises,  or  does  not  keep  them,  in  its  courts.  For 
the  individual,  therefore,  who  stands  at  the  centre  of  every 
definition  of  liberty,  the  struggle  for  constitutional  govern 
ment  is  a  struggle  for  good  laws,  indeed,  but  also  for  intelli 
gent,  independent,  and  impartial  courts."19 

Another  point  that  is  central  to  this  discussion,  is  that  of 
the  atmosphere  of  a  constitutional  government.  Public  opin 
ion  is  the  atmosphere  of  all  governments  but  peculiarly  true  is 
this  as  regards  a  constitutional  government.  Opinion  is  the 
air  from  which  it  takes  its  breath  and  vigor.20  An  irresponsi 
ble  government  seeks  to  keep  opinion  accommodated  to  the 
government  while  a  constitutional  government  is  at  its  best 
when  it  accommodates  itself  to  the  habit  and  thought  of  the 
nation.  A  constitutional  government  is  the  one  form  of  gov 
ernment  under  wrhich  institutions  that  assist  in  the  mainten 
ance  of  a  proper  adjustment  between  the  power  of  govern 
ment  and  the  rights  of  the  individual  are  created  by  opinion. 
The  breath  and  life  go  out  of  the  institutions  as  soon  as  they 
cease  to  be  sustained  by  the  conscious  or  habitual  preference 
of  the  people. 

"Every  man's  thought  is  pan  of  the  vital  substance  of  its 
institutions/'2  With  a  change  in  the  thought  of  the  people 
comes  change  of  institution?.  Under  free  government  citizen 
ship  is  not  only  a  thing  of  dignity  but  a  thing  of  tremendous 
responsibility.  "And  that  will  always  be  the  freest  country  in 
which  enlightened  opinion  abounds,  in  which  to  plant  the  prac 
tices  of  government.  It  is  of  the  essence  of  a  constitutional 
system  that  its  people  should  think  straight,  maintain  a  con 
sistent  purpose,  look  before  and  after,  and  make  their  lives 
the  image  of  their  thoughts."2  The  people  become  practiced 
masters  of  constitutional  government  when  they  know  their 
minds  and  can  get  representatives  to  express  them.23  The 
only  absolute  safeguards  of  a  constitutional  government  lie  in 
the  character,  the  independence,  the  resolution,  the  right  pur- 

10  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  17. 
20  Ibid.,  20,  22. 

11  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  23. 
"  Ibid.,  23. 

« Ibid,  222. 

II 


pose  of  the  men  who  vote  and  who  choose  the  public  ser 
vants^4 

How  a  nice  adjustment  is  to  be  maintained  between  those 
who  administer  the  law  and  those  who  obey  it  is  the  final  im 
portant  point.  Not  only  is  this  clear  undemanding  between 
the  g» -\ernors  and  the  governed,  established  in  charters  and 
con>t::  .iions,  a  fundamental  prerequisite  of  constitutional  gov 
ernment,  but  the  agreement  and  adjustment  must  be  kept  up 
alike  in  the  making  and  in  the  execution  of  the  laws,  it  must 
be  accommodated  to  each  day  and  generation.  According  to 
Mr.  Wilson,  genuine  representative  assemblies  are  the  indis 
pensable  means  for  maintaining  this  adjustment  and  the  pro 
cess  is  common  counsel,  discussion.  Discussion  conducted  by 
those  who  stand  in  the  midst  of  affairs,  at  the  centre  of  man 
agement,  where  affairs  can  be  looked  into  and  disposed  of  with 
full  knowledge  and  authority.  Common  counsel  between  those 
who  govern  and  those  who  are  governed ;  those  intrusted  with 
the  government  being  present  in  person,  the  people  by  deputy.25 
"Constitutional  government  can  be  vital  only  when  it  is  re 
freshed  at  every  turn  of  affairs  by  a  new  and  cordial  and 
easily  attained  understanding  between  those  who  govern  and 
those  who  are  governed.  It  can  be  maintained  only  by  gen 
uine  common  counsel;  and  genuine  common  counsel  can  be 
obtained  only  by  genuine  representative  institutions."26  His 
view  is  that  representative  assemblies  by  counsel  and  criti 
cism  will  maintain  the  proper  balance  between  opinion  and 
power.  He  says  further,  that  the  object  of  discussion  is  not 
that  common  opinion,  the  opinion  of  the  street  and  store 
should  prevail,  but  that  the  best  opinion  should  prevail;  opin 
ion  created  by  thoughtful  and  responsible  discussion  in  parlia 
ment  between  authoritative  critics  and  responsible  ministers 
of  state.  Opinion  compounded  out  of  many  views  in  actual 
contact,  a  living  thing  made  of  the  vital  substance  of  many 
minds,  many  personalities,  many  experiences.27 

He  emphatically  states  that  it  should  not  be  the  function  of 
representative  assemblies  to  conduct  the  government.  Time 
and  time  again  he  points  out  that  their  function  is  common 
counsel  and  not  the  origination  and  conduct  of  the  business 

•*Ibid.,  166-167. 

"Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  87,  p.  291 
••  Const  Govt  in  U.  S.,  222. 
**  Const  Govt  in  U.  S.,  105. 

12 


of  government;  their  duty  is  criticism  and  restraint;  to  insist 
on  those  measures  which  the  nation  needs  and  resist  those  it 
does  not  need.  Their  original  purpose  was  watchful  criticism, 
counsel  that  would  reveal  the  whole  intention  of  the  govern 
ment  and  keep  those  who  conduct  it  in  sympathetic  touch  with 
the  real  feeling  and  desire  of  the  nation.  They  were  to  voice 
the  conscience  of  the  nation  in  the  presence  of  government 
and  the  exercise  of  authority.  To  him  it  is  plainly  evident 
that  representative  bodies,  free  to  criticise  and  acting  with  in 
dependence,  uttering  the  voice  of  those  who  are  governed,  and 
enjoying  such  authority  as  no  king  or  president  may  question 
or  gainsay,  constitute  an  indispensable  part  of  the  institutional 
make-up  of  a  constitutional  government;  bur  their  function  is 
not  to  conduct  the  business  of  government.2* 

It  is  well  here  to  note  the  importance  Wilson  ascribes  to  the 
federal  system  in  constitutional  government.  He  says  that 
nothing  so  adds  to  the  vitality  of  the  government,  the  elasticity 
of  the  system  as  the  relationship  that  exists  between  the  Fed 
eral  and  State  governments.  It  is  in  a,  federal  state  that  the 
highest  degree  of  vitality  of  its  parts  is  attained.  This  vital 
ity  is  due  to  the  fact  that  a  federal  state  is  composed  of  "self- 
originated,  self-constituted,  self-confident,  self-sustaining,  ver 
itable  communities."  The  spontaneity  and  variety,  the  inde 
pendent  and  irrepressible  life  of  its  communities  gives  to  the 
federal  system  extraordinary  elasticity  and  vigor  w4iich  pre 
serves  it  from  the  paralysis  that  comes  sooner  or  later  to  every 
people  who  look  to  their  central  government  to  patronize  and 
nurture  them.  Such  a  political  system  by.  distributing  the 
chief  powers  of  government  among  the  States  becomes  an  ad 
mirable  instrumentality  of  constitutional  understanding  and 
adjustment  between  popular  thought  and  governmental 
method,  and  this  system  may  yet  afford  the  world  the  model 
of  federation  and  liberty  it  may  in  God's  providence  come  to 
seek.29  The  federal  system  affords  opportunity  for  spontan 
eous  political  growth  instead  of  forced  growth. 


28  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  10-14. 
"Ibid.,  50-52,  182-183. 


CHAPTER  III 

DEMOCRACY 

Modern  democracy  derives  no  support  at  all  from  the  prac 
tices  of  the  classical  states,  nor  any  countenance  whatever 
from  the  principles  of  classical  statesmen  and  philosophers.1 

The  Grecian  and  Roman  democracies,  at  best,  rested  upon 
a  privileged  class.  Slaves  abounded;  citizenship  and  even  the 
privileges  of  the  courts  of  justice  were  reserved  for  men  of 
a  particular  blood  and  lineage.  Those  who  were  in  the  ranks 
of  privileged  citizenship  despised  those  who  were  not,  guarded 
their  rank  very  jealously  against  intruders,  and  used  their 
power  as  a  right  singular  and  exclusive,  theirs,  not  as  man, 
but  as  Athenians  of  authentic  extraction,  as  Romans  of  old 
patrician  blood.2 

"Modem  democracy  wears  a  different  aspect,  and  rests 
upon  principles  separated  by  the  whole  heaven  from  those  of 
the  Roman  and  Grecian  democrat.  Its  theory  is  of  equal 
rights  without  respect  of  blood  or  breeding.  It  knows  nothing 
of  a  citizenship  won  by  privilege  or  inherited  through  lines 
of  descent  which  cannot  be  changed  or  broadened.  Its  thought 
is  of  a  society  without  castes  or  classes,  of  equality  of  political 
birthright  which  is  without  bound  or  limitation.  Its  founda 
tions  are  set  in  a  philosophy  that  would  extend  to  all  mankind 
an  equal  emancipation,  make  citizens  of  all  men,  and  cut  away 
everywhere  exceptional  privilege.  'All  men  are  born  free  and 
equal'  is  a  classical  sentence  of  its  creed,  and  its  dream  is  al 
ways  of  a  state  in  which  no  man  shall  have  mastery  over  an 
other  without  his  willing  acquiescence  and  consent.  It  speaks 
always  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  and  of  rulers  as  the 
people's  servants."3 

Wilson  points  out  that  these  ideals  of  democracy  bear  the 
touch  of  the  visionary  genius  of  the  French  mind  rather  than 
that  of  the  vigorous  and  practical  genius  of  the  English  mind. 

xThe  State,  581-2.     Problems  in  Modern  Democracy,  59. 
*  The  State,  582-6.     Problems  in  Modern  Democracy,  60. 
•Problems  in  Modern  Democracy,  60-61. 

14 


He  thus  comments :  "The  truth  is  that  these  ideals  by  which 
we  seek  and  profess  to  live  were  formulated  before  the  dem 
ocracy  of  which  they  speak  with  so  fine  a  fervor  had  anywhere 
come  into  existence.  They  were  the  song  which  beguiled  the 
infancy  of  democracy,  and  like  other  cradle  songs  bear  the 
marks  of  literary  genius  rather  than  hard  experience."4 

Such  a  philosophy  of  democracy  is  the  dream  of  French 
philosophers,  it  comes  not  as  the  result  of  practice  and  ex 
perience.  When  wre  turn  from  the  speculation  of  these  French 
dreamers  to  the  sober  sentences  which  philosophers  and 
statesmen  of  our  own  race,  and  our  own  experience  have 
spoken  with  regard  to  liberty  and  the  institutions  which  make 
men  free,  the  confusion  clears  away  at  once  and  we  have  a 
secure  footing  alike  for  thought  and  action.5  The  French 
speak  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people;  we  speak  of  the  con 
sent  of  the  governed.  Their  thought  is  a  dream;  ours,  ex 
perience  and  practice.  Theirs  the  elevations  of  ecstasy  to 
which  revolutionists  climb;  ours,  the  level  of  every  day  habit 
and  experience  of  adjusting  government  to  our  needs  which 
finds  expression  in  constitutional  government. 

Wilson  accepts  the  English  philosophy  of  democracy,  and  it 
is  well  to  present  here  a  summary  of  that  before  turning  to 
another  aspect  of  the  subject.  In  his  direct  style  he  says, 
"Democracy  is  the  antithesis  of  all  government  by  privilege. 
It  excludes  all  hereditary  right  to  rule,  whether  in  a  single 
family  or  in  a  single  class  or  in  any  combination  of  classes. 
It  makes  the  g^n^rjl_welfaj^^f_^pciety  the  end  and  object  of 
law,  and  declares  that  no  class,  no  aristocratic  minority,  no 
single  group  of  men,  however  numerous,  ^however  capable, 
however  enlightened,  can  see  broadly  enough  or  sufficiently 
free  itself  from  bias  to  perceive  a  nation's  needs  in  their  en 
tirety  or  guide  its  destinies  for  the  benefit  of  all.  The^cqnsent 
of  the  governed  must  at  every  turn  check  and  determine  the 
action  of  tTTose  who  make  and  execute  the  law."8 

In  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  observed  that  government 
passes  through  four  stages  of  growth  before  completing  the 
development.  The  fourth  stage,  the  one  in  which  the  leaders 
of  the  people  took  charge  of  the  government,  is  the  stage  of 

« Iliid.,  62. 

5  Problems  in  Modern  Democracy,  62.     Cf.  Chapter  II. 

roblems  in  Modern  Democracy,  63.     Cf.  N.  A.  Review,  vol.  186, 
p.  37.    The  New  Freedom,  72.    War  Speech,  Apr.  2,  1917. 

15 


constitutional  government.  A  constitutional  government  was 
defined  as  one  whose  powers  are  adapted  to  the  interests  of 
its  people  and  to  the  maintenance  of  individual  liberty.  It 
was  further  stated  that  such  a  government  is  conducted  upon 
the  basis  of  a  definite  understanding  between  those  who  are 
to  submit  to  it  and  those  who  are  to  conduct  it.  In  this  fourth 
stage  the  people  are  accustomed  to  select  from  their  own  ranks 
their  leaders  who  are  to  give  expression  to  the  popular  will. 
It  is  a  long  way  from  the  fir.st  stage  when  rulers  were  abso 
lute,  to  the  fourth  and  last  when  the  leaders  of  the  people  be 
came  the  government. 

As  constitutional  government  is  a  stage  in  political  develop 
ment  so  is  democracy  a  stage  in  political  development.  Dem 
ocracy  is  a  grade  of  constitutional  government,  it  is  the  high 
est  grade,  it  is  the  last  and  most  advanced  stage  of  constitu 
tional  development.  Constitutional  government  at  its  best  is 
democracy.7 

Democracy  is  not  a  form  of  government  but  a  stage  of 
political  development.  It  is  a  stage  of  development  that  is 
reached  after  long  discipline  and  political  training  which  has 
prepared  a  people  by  gradual  steps  for  self-government,  for 
assuming  entire  control  of  their  government.8  A  democracy 
is  a  people  that  has  ideals  and  can  translate  them  into  action; 
a  people  who  can  translate  these  ideals  into  political  practices 
and  institutions  that  will  serve  them  in  their  every  day  life; 
a  people  whose  ideals  are  the  standards  of  their  government.9 
Democracy  cannot  be  had  by  adopting  a  certain  constitu 
tion  or  by  accepting  certain  institutions  or  practices  but  it 
comes  as  a  result  of  trained  capacity  and  aptitude  for  public 
affairs.  A  democracy  is  a  community  capable  of  self-govern 
ment.  In  speaking  of  the  American  democracy  Wilson  says 
it  came  as  a  result  of  our  political  experience;  an  immature 
people  could  not  have  had  it.  It  came  like  manhood  as  the 
fruit  of  youth.10 

It  might  be  well  to  point  out  here  that,  "It  is  a  deeply 
significant  fact,  therefore,  again  and  again  to  be  called  to  mind, 
that  only  in  the  United  States,  in  a  few  other  governments  be- 

T  Const.  Govt.  in  the  U.  S.,  "ii-^2.     Problems  in  Modern  Democracy. 

63. 

•An  Old  Master  and  other  Political  Essays,  114-18.  Const.  Govt. 
in  the  U.  S.,  52.  The  New  Freedom,  231. 

•Address  at  Independence  Hall,  July  4,  1914. 

10  An  Old  Master  and  oilier  Political  Essays,  116. 

16 


gotten  of  the  English  race,  and  in  Switzerland,  where  the  old 
Teutonic  habit  has  had  the  same  persistency  as  in  England, 
have  examples  yet  been  furnished  of  successful  democracy  of 
the  modem  type."11 

What  form  or  system  of  government  will  a  community 
capable  of  self-government,  that  is,  a  democracy,  establish  for 
itself?  It  is  a  fact  ever  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  democracy  is 
the  result  of  political  growth,  it  is  a  stage  in  that  growth  when 
a  people  become  capable  of  self-government.  It  is  not  so 
much  the  form  of  the  government  that  a  people  has  that 
counts;  but  the  main  thing  is  their  capacity  and  aptitude  for 
conducting  whatever  government  they  are  heir  to  as  a  result  of 
their  historical  development.  Mr.  Bryce  went  to  the  core  of 
the  matter  when  he  said  that  the  American  people  'would 
make  any  form  of  government  work.  What  he  meant  was 
that  it  is  not  a  matter  so  much  of  the  details  of  organization ; 
the  all-important  fact  is  that  the  American  people  have  the 
political  capacity  and  training  to  make  any  kind  of  constitu 
tional  government  work  and  serve  them.  In  line  with  this 
thought  is  Mr.  Wilson's  statement  that  governments  are  after 
all  governments  of  men,  they  are  good  or  bad  as  the  men  who 
conduct  them  are  capable  or  incapable.  And  whether  they  will 
be  capable  or  not  depends  on  whether  the  people  know  their 
own  minds  and  are  capable  of  choosing  competent  public 
servants.12  The  system  of  government  or  polity  which  a 
democracy  has  depends  upon  the  history  and  tradition 
of  that  particular  country;  it  depends  upon  the  peculiar  so 
cial,  economic  and  political  conditions  of  that  people.  That 
is  the  explanation  of  the  differences  in  polities  of  England, 
United  States  and  Switzerland.  Each  people  must  use  the 
instruments  of  government  which  they  have  become  accus 
tomed  to  by  training  and  practice.  Each  country  will  have  its 
own  peculiar  institutions  and  practices ;  such  institutions  and 
practices  as  will  assist  the  people  in  the  realization  of  the  ob 
jects  of  government.  Since  the  practices  ana  institutions  of 
a  people  are  an  expression  of  their  training  and  experience, 
no  two  people  may  be  expected  to  succeed  by  the  same  means 
unless  these  means  are  equally  suited  to  the  character  of  both 
people.13 

11  An  Old  Master  and  other  Political  Essays,  118. 
11  Const.  Govt.  in  the  U.  S.,  17,  165. 
"  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  87,  p.  289. 

17 


From  the  foregoing  it  must  not  be  concluded  that  the  form 
and  character  of  the  government  of  a  democracy  is  not  of 
capital  importance.  As  already  indicated,  in  order  for  there 
to  be  self-government,  there  must  be  a  constitutional  system, 
that  is,  the  government  must  be  conducted  upon  the  basis  of 
a  definite  understanding  between  the  government  and  the 
people.  The  right  of  the  individual  must  be  defined  and  guar 
anteed  by  specific  safeguards,  the  authority  and  functions  of 
those  who  rule  must  be  limited  and  determined  by  unmistak 
able  custom  or  explicit  fundamental  law.  Those  who  conduct 
the  government  must  be  responsible  to  the  people.  So  it  is 
plain  that  both  capacity  for  self-government  and  adequate  in 
stitutions  and  forms  based  on  certain  well  defined  principles 
:of  constitutional  government  are  indispensable  to  a  democ 
racy.  The  consent  of  the  governed  must  at  every  turn  check 
and  determine  the  action  of  those  who  make  and  execute  the 
laws.  A  modern  democracy  is  a  government  subject  to  system 
atic  popular  control.1*  A  people  who  are  capable  of  self-gov 
ernment  may  not  be  a  self-governing  people  because  they  do 
not  have  the  institutions  and  organs  with  which  to  take  charge 
and  conduct  the  government.  This  is  the  case  with  Germany. 
The  German  government  is  not  a  constitutional  government, 
and  therefore  not  a  democracy,  although  the  people  are  cap 
able  of  self-government.  The  government  is  not  the  leaders 
of  the  people  and  responsible  to  the  people  but  it  is  an  irre 
sponsible  military  group,  an  autocracy.  On  the  other  hand, 
forms  and  institutions  without  capacity  will  not  make  a  dem 
ocracy.  No  form  of  government  would  make  of  Mexico  a 
democracy.  They  have  not  had  the  requisite  discipline  and 
training  and  experience  for  self-government. 


"  Problems  in  Modern  Democracy,  65. 

18 


CHAPTER  IV 

SOVEREIGNTY 

Sovereignty  is  the  highest  political  power  in  the  state;  it  is 
the  power  to  select  the  policy  of  the  nation,  propose,  formu 
late,  and  modify  its  laws,  determine  its  relations  with  other 
nations,  and  its  place  of  leadership  in  the  world.  In  short, 
sovereignty  is  the  power  to  determine  and  execute  the  policy 
of  the  government.1 

Wilson  thus  rejects  thelegal  conception  of  sovereignty  vvbich 
defines  sovereignty  as  unlirmte'd  powei\  To"lriis  Wilson  says, 
"There  is  nol  unlimited  power,  except  the  summation  of  all 
powers.  Our  legal  theorists  have  sought  unlimited  sovereignty 
by  a  process  of  summation;  have  made  it  consist  in  the  com 
bined  forces  of  the  community.  Sovereignty,  if  it  be  a  defi 
nite  and  separable  thing  at  all,  is  not  unlimited  power;  is  not 
identical  with  the  powers  of  the  community.  It  is  not  the  gen 
eral  vitality  of  the  organism,  but  the  specific  originative  power 
of  certain  organs.  Sovereigns  have  ahvays  been  subject  in 
greater  or  less  degree  "tjTjthe  community ;  have  always  been 
organs  of  the  state;  have  never  been  the  state  itself.  But 
they  have  been  sovereigns  none  the  less ;  they  and  not  the  com 
munity  over  which  they  presided."2 

Legally  speaking  sovereignty  in  England  rests  with  Parlia 
ment  and  Parliament  has  unlimited  legislative  power.  "What 
ever  an  Act  of  Parliament  prescribes  is  law,  even  though  it 
contravenes  every  principle  .  .  .  recognized  before  the  passage 
of  the  Act  as  inviolable.  Such  is  the  theory.  T-fce  well  known 
fact  is,  that  Parliament  dare  do  nothing  that  will  even  seem 
to  contravene  principles  held  to  be  sacred  in  the  sphere  either 
of  constitutional  privilege  or  private  right.  Parliament  is 
master,  can  utter  valid  commands,  only  so  far  as  it  interprets, 
or  at  least,  does  not  cross,  the  wishes  of  the  people.  Its  actual 

1Old  Master,  Si ;  Problems  in  Modern  Democracy,  65. 

*  Old  Master,  80;  See  Treitschke  Politics,  vol.  I,  22',  Blackstone, 
Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England,  Chase's  ed.,  14;  Story,  Com 
mentaries  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  vol.  I,  sec.  207. 

19 


power  is  not  a  whit  broader  for  having  a  free  field  in  law, 
so  long  as  the  field  in  which  it  really  moves  is  fenced  high 
about  by  firm  facts."3  Eyen  the  power  of  the  Czar  of  Russia 
was  not  unlimited  in  fact  as  was  so  sternly  revealed  by  the 
receniT^evolution.  As  much  might  be  said  also  of  the  Sultan 
of  Turkey.  Sovereignty,  therefore,  as  ideally  conceived  in 
legal  theory,  nowhere  exists. 

And,  too,  W^on  refuses  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  Popular 
Sovereignty.^  The  people  accept  or  reject  measures,  but  do 
noL-propose^thcmj  the  people  approve  and  reverse  policies  of 
the  government,  but  do  not  originate  or  execute  them.  The 
people  pass  judgment  or  give  sanction  but  they  do  not  direct 
or  suggest.4 

"Sovereign  power  is  the  higher  L-pAlit^al  po\vpr  of  the  state, 
lodged  in  active  organs,  for  the  purpose  of  governing.  Sov 
ereign  power  is  a  positive  thing;  control  is  a  negative  thing. 
.Power  belongs  to  government,  is  lodged  in  organs  of  initiative ; 
control  belongs  to  the  community,  is  lodged  with  the  voters."5 
Sovereignty  is  not  IT  thing  ^bf  consent  and  approval,  but  a 
thing  of  initiative  and  action.  Tfeose  whom  tiie_j3gflple^jciiopse 
to  conduct  the  government  exercise  sovereignty,  they  deter 
mine  and  execute  the  policy  of  the  government,  subject  al- 
ways  to  the  consenL_ajid  approval — the  control — of^  die  peo 
ple.,'  "Questions  of  government  are  infinitely  complex  "ques 
tions,  and  no  multitude  can  of  themselves  form  clear-cut, 
comprehensive,  consistent  conclusions  touching  them.  Yet 
without  such  conclusions,  without  single  and  prompt  pur 
poses  government  cannot  be  carried  on."T 

Wilson  locates  sovereignty  in  the  law-making  body.  "It  is 
never  easy,"  says  Wilson,  "to  point  out  in  our  complex  mod 
ern  governments  the  exact  organs  in  which  sovereignty  is 
lodged.  On  the  whole,  however,  it  is  always  safe  to  ascribe 
sovereignty  to  the  highest  originative  or  law-making  body  of 

•The  State,  599-600. 

4  Old  Master,  85-86;  Even  when  the  Initiative  or  Referendum  is 
employed  as  in  Switzerland,  it  is  merely  a  small  group  of  the  most 
progressive  citizens  submitting  a  proposition  to  the  mass  of  voters  for 
approval  or  rejection.  This  is  not  popular  initiative  or  popular  origi 
nation;  Old  Master,  74-75.  See  Boutny,  Etudes,  Politiques,  52.  Rous 
seau,  Social  Contract,  Harrington's  Trans.  36,  137. 

• Ibid.,  90. 

•  Problems  of  Modern  FXmocracy,  64  65. 

TOld  Master,  130. 

20 


the  state — the  body  by  whose  determinations  both  the  tasks, 
to  be  carried  out  by  the  Administration  and  the  rules  to  be 
applied  by  the  courts  are  fixed  and  warranted.8  It  is  the  law- 
making  body  that  "transmutes  selected  tendencies  into  stiff 
and  urgent  rules.  ...  It  determines  which  tendencies  shall  be 
accepted,  which  checked  and  denied  efficacy.  It  forms  the 
purposes  of  the  state,  avoiding  revolution  if  it  forms  them 
wisely  and  with  a  true  insight."9 

The  federal  state  is  no  exception  to  this  rule.  Wilson  says, 
"The  constituent  act — the  manner  in  which  the  government 
was  created — can,  I  conceive,  have  nothing  to  do  N  with  our 
analysis  of  the  matter.  The  way  in  which  a  federal  state  came 
into  existence  is  immaterial  to  the  question  of  sovereignty. 
Originative  life  and  action,  the  characteristic  attributes  of 
sovereignty,  come  after  that.  The  constituent  act  creates  a 
thing  capable  of  exercising  sovereignty."10 

In  a  federal  state  then,  as  well  as  in  a  unitary  state,  sov 
ereignty  is  located  in  the  law-making  body.  In  conformity 
with  this  statement,  he  says  with  regard  to  sovereignty  in  the 
United  States,  "The  whole  energy  of  origination  under  our 
system  rests  with  Congress.  It  stands  at  the  front  of  all  gov 
ernment  among  us ;  it  is  the  single  affirmative  voice  in  national 
policy.  First  or  last,  it  determines  what  is  to  be  done.  The 
President,  indeed,  appoints  officers  and  negotiates  treaties,  but 
he  does  so  subject  to  the  'yes'  of  the  Senate.  Congress  or 
ganizes  the  army,  organizes  the  navy.  It  audits,  approves, 
and  pays  the  expenses.  It  conceives  and  directs  all  compre 
hensive  policy.  All  else  is  negation/'11  Again  he  emphasizes 
the  predominant  position  of  Congress.  "Government  lives  in 
the  origination,  not  in  the  defeat  of  measures.  The  President 
obstructs  by  means  of  his  'No';  the  houses  govern  by  means 
of  their  'Yes.'  He  has  killed  some  measures  that  are  dead; 
they  have  given  birth  to  all  policies  that  are  alive."12 

At  the  time  the  above  was  written,  the  President  was  a 
"constitutional"  executive;  that  is,  an  executive  in  the  sense 
of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  He  was  not  expected  to 
lead  Congress.  But  since  that  time,  the  President  "has  be- 

8  Ibid.,  90-91. 
•Ibid.,  95-96. 

10  Ibid.,  92-93. 

11  Ibid.,  148-149. 
» Ibid.,  168. 

21 


conic  the  leader  of  his  party  ami  the  guide  of  the  nation  in 
political  purposes,  and  therefore  in  legal  action."1  Today  as 
leader  of  his  party,  he  is  the  leader  of  Congress  in  legislative 
action  and  the  dominant  figure  in  determining  the  policy  of 
the  government. 

"  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  60. 


22 


CHAPTER  V 

LIBERTY 

The  history  of  constitutional  government  in  the  modern 
world  is  the  history  of  political  liberty.  It  ivas  the  determi 
nation  to  secure  political  liberty  that  brought  forth  Magna 
Carta;  it  was  political  liberty  for  which  the  American  colon 
ists  were  seeking  when  the  immortal  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  was  drawn  up.  In  fact,  all  that  men  have  striven 
for  in  the  reform  of  government  has  been  political  liberty. 

In  his  peculiarly  concise  manner,  Woodrow  Wilson  in  one 
sentence,  epigrammatic  but  pregnant  with  meaning,  defines  po- 
litical  liberty  as  "the  right  of  those  who  are  governedTb 


"adjust. the  government  to  their  o\\'fl  needs  and  Tnferests/**"^ 

Then  in  order  for  a  people  to  be  free,  they  must  have  the 
right  to  adjust  the  government  to  their  needs  and  interests. 
In  other  words,  to  a  free  people,  the  government  must  be  an 
instrumentality  to  be  used  by  them  for  administering  to  their 
needs  and  interests.  This  definition  of  political  liberty  ob 
viously  implies  two  things.  First,  that  the  people  have  the 
machinery  with  which  to  adjust  the  government  to  their  own 
needs  and  interests ;  and  second,  that  the  people  have  the  abil 
ity  to  use  this  machinery  in  making  the  adjustment.  If  a 
people  have  not  the  machinery  and  the  ability  to  use  it  they 
are  not  a  free  people.  This  machinery  for  the  maintenance  of 
political  liberty  consists  in  the  first  place  of  a  definite  formu 
lation  of  the  rights  of  the  individual — that  is,  the  rights  of 
the  individual  against  the  community  or  its  government — such 
as  is  contained  in  the  Magna  Carta  and  the  Bill  of  Rights  at 
tached  to  the  American  constitution ;  in  the  second  place,  an 
assembly,  representative  of  tjje  people  and  not  of  the  govern 
ment,  a  body  whose  function  is  to  criticise,  restrain,  and  con 
trol  the  government;  in  the  third  place,  a  government  or  ex 
ecutive  subject  to  the  laws;  and  finally,  there  must  be  a  judi 
ciary  with  substantial  and  independent  powers,  secure  against 
all  corrupting  or  perverting  influences  on  the  one  hand  and 

1  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  4. 

23 


against  the  arbitrary  authority  of  the  government  itself  on 
the  other.3  This  is  a  summary  of  the  institutions,  that  is,  the 
machinery,  necessary  for  the  adjustment  of  the  government  to 
the  needs  and  interests  of  the  people. 

As  to  the  other  point  implied  in  that  definition  of  political 
liberty,  that  is,  the  ability  to  use  the  machinery  in  making  the 
adjustment,  it  may  be  said  that  liberty  is  not  something  that 
can  be  created  by  a  document.3  According  to  Woodrow  Wil 
son,  political  liberty  comes  in  the  course  of  constitutional  de 
velopment;  with  constitutional  government.  The  machinery 
required  for  a  constitutional  government  is  that  which  is  nec 
essary  for  making  the  government  serve  the  people.  The 
ability  required  of  a  people  to  operate  a  constitutional  govern 
ment  is  also  required  of  a  people  to  secure  political  liberty. 
.  Not  only  is  the  above  named  machinery  necessary  for  a  people 
to  be  free  but  that  people  must  be  able  to  use  the  machinery. 
The  people  must  know  what  their  needs  and  interests  are  and 
must  be  able  to  choose  competent  representatives  who  will  ex 
press  these  in  law ;  representatives  who  by  their  helpful  criti 
cism  and  common  counsel  with  those  in  charge  of  the  govern 
ment  shall  effect  such  a  policy  as  will  serve  the  interests  and 
foster  the  happiness  of  the  people. 

The  highest  degree  of  liberty  is  enjoyecl_J2v_that  people 
ivhich  |s  capable  of  sel f -go  vernmen  t,  that  is.  by  a  democracy. 
The  political  liberty  of  a  people  is  limited  only  by  their  ca 
pacity  to  make  the  government  an  instrumentality  for  serv 
ing  their  needs  and  interests.  The  machinery  and  ability  to 
handle  it  are  both  indispensable.  The  people  of  Germany  have 
the  capacity  to  make  the  adjustment  but  lacking  adequate 
machinery,  they  are  not  a  free  people.  Even  if  the  govern 
ment  of  Germany  in  many  instances  serves  the  people,  they 
are  not  a  free  people  because  they  have  neither  the  right 
legally  nor  the  power,  which  is  supplied  by  the  proper  ma 
chinery,  for  adjusting  the  government  to  their  needs  and  in 
terests. 

Wilson  seeks  to  emphasize  the  absurdity  of  thinking  that 
liberty  can  be  created  by  a  document  and  laid  away  as  a  com 
pleted  work.  To  him,  liberty  is  a  principle  of  life.4  For  in- 

*  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  f± 

•Old  Master,  115.     Mere  Literature  and  other  Essays,  198.    Atlantic 

Monthly,  vol.  90,  p.  728.    Address  at  Independence  Hall,  July.  4,  1914. 

*01d  Master,  115. 


stance  he  says,  "The  ideals  of  liberty  cannot  be  fixed  from 
generation  to  generation;  only  its  conception  can  be,  the  large 
image  of  what  it  is.  Liliejrj^jlxed  in  unalterable  law  would 
be  no  liberty__al_all.  Government  is  a  part  ot  lite,  and,  witfT 
life,  it  must  change,  alike  in  its  objects  and  in  its  practices; 
only-this  principle  must  remain  unaltered — this  principle  ol 
jibertyf  .that^tbcrcnuist  be  the  freest  right  and  opportunity  of 
adjustment/  °  Looking  at  trifs  phase  bFfTFe  subject  more^frp" 
rectly,  he  continues,  "Political  liberty  consists  in  the  best  prac 
tical  adjustment  and  understanding  between  the  power  of  the 
government  and  the  privilege  of  the  individual ;  and  the  free 
dom  to  alter  the  adjustment  is  as  important  as  the  adjustment 
itself  for  the  ease  and  progress  of  affairs  and  the  contentment 
of  the  citizen."6 

This  understanding  must  be  maintained  by  law,  by  statutes 
that  are  enforced;  if  either  the  individual  or  the  government 
can  disregard  the  understanding,  there  is  license  and  not 
liberty.7 

Wilson  makes  it  unmistakable  that.libertxJj^^O"^  fO  fop  1'nJ 
dividual.^  It  is  an  individual  right,  not  a  communal  right. 
With  him  the  individual  stands  at  the  very  centre  ot  every 
definition  of  liberty.  He  says  in  part  that  "the  individual  is 
indisputably  the  original,  the  first  fact  of  liberty.  Nations  are 
made  up  of  individuals,  and  the  dealings  of  government  with 
individuals  are  the  ultimate  and  perfect  test  of  its  constitu 
tional  character.  A  man  is  not  free  through  representative 
assemblies,  he  is  free  in  his  own  action,  his  own  dealings  with 
the  persons  and  powers  about  him,  or  he  is  not  free  at  all. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  corporate  liberty.  Liberty  belongs 
to  the  individual,  or  it  does  not  exist."8 

It  is  plain  that  this  view  of  liberty  is  quite  in  harmony  with 
Wilson's  idea  of  the  proper  attitude  of  government  toward  the 
individual;  he  is  thrown  on  his  own  resources,  he  is  expected 
to  see  and  seek  his  own  rights,  attain  the  highest  degree  of  in 
dividual  self-development,  become  intelligent  and  independent, 
and  his  natural  impulses  and  his  capacity  fo&e  adjusting  the 
government  to  his  needs  make  him  a  free  man,  but  always  free 
as  an  individual. 

•Const.  Govt  in  U.  S.,  4. 

« Ibid.,  5. 

T  North  American  Review,  vol.  186,  p.  27. 

•  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  16. 

25 


Then  the  conclusion  is  th.it  political  liberty  is  a  right  that 
belongs  to  the  individual.     It  is  the  "nliyj'J'M1  "'1ir>  nmcf  1y»yo 
this  right  j^iirnnjvpji  by  ft  •bilLnL-£J£fttS  ^  *s  lne  individual 
who  must  seek  vindication  of  his 
individuals 

chojaiin^;  it  is  the  individual  who  must  make  his  interests  and 
needs  felt  by  the  government;  in  short,  it  is  the  jnclividuals 
who  are  citizens  of  a  country,  who  must  adjust  the  govern 
ment  to  their  needs  and  interests.  .  f. 

The  fre££t  people  are  those  who  ar^_^e2aj^cdjto_Jiaji^^^r' 
their  government  and  make  it  serve  their  needs  and  interest^  ^ 
Besides  training  and~experience,  thepeople  need  an  organiza 
tion  of  government  that  is  as  simple  as  efficiency  will  admit. 
They  must  have  a  system  that  will  readily  attract  the  ablest 
men  into  public  service  and  a  polity  that  will  stimulate  in 
each  citizen  a  wholesome  national  pride.  It  may  be  said  that 
the  freest  government  is  the  one  which,  by  virtue  of  its  or 
ganization  and  adaptability  to  the  experience  and  training  of 
the  people,  lends  itself  most  readily  to  the  service  of  the  peo- 
pie. 

Political  liberty  goes  even  beyond  the  right  merely  of  ad 
justing  an  already  constituted  government  to  the  needs  and  in 
terests  of  the  individual.  Wilson  unreservedly  subscribes  to 
the  principle  that  governments  are  instituted  for  the  common 
benefit,  protection,  and  security  of  the  people;  that  of  all  the 
forms  of  government,  that  is  the  best  which  produces  the 
greatest  degree  of  happiness  and  safety,  and  is  most  effectu 
ally  secured  against  the  danger  of  maladministration.  And 
the  further  important  point  which  is  sought  to  be  emphasized 
here  is  that,  at  any  time  a  form  of  government  proves  inade 
quate  for  serving  the  needs  and  interests  of  the  people,  the 
people  have  the  inalienable  right  to  reform,  alter,  or  even 
abolish  that  government  and  institute  in  its  place  such  a  form 
of  government  as  will  serve  them  and  promote  their  happiness 
and  safety.9  Free  men  always  have  "the  right  to  determine 
whether  die  government  they  live  under  is  based  upon  such 
principles  or  administered  according  to  such  forms  as  are 
likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness."10 

Not  only  must  the  people  have  the  machinery  and  institu 
tions  of  a  constitutional  government  and  be  able  to  use  them, 

9  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  4.     Speech  to  Congress,  Dec.  7,  1915. 

10  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  4. 

26 


and  also  the  inalicnablcrightjp  alter  and  even  abolishthat  gov- 

_euirncnt  if  it  does  not  serve  the  interests  and  promote" the  Jiaj)- 

<^sense>  the  people  must  actively  and  energetically  exercise  this 

right  of  adjusting  the  government  to  their  needs  and  interests. 

No  people  who  neglects  or  refuses  to  exercise  this  right  is  free. 

Butjbovv  are  the  people  to  exercise  this  right?  They. can 
not  make  the  adjustment  directly  but  must_do  it  through 
their  chosen  leaders  who  select  the  policy  of  the  nation,  pro-' 
pose,  formulate,  and  modify  its  laws  and  determine  its  rela 
tions  with  other  nations  and  its  place  of  leadership  in  the 
world.11  Freedom  is  obtained  by  the jiroggr  nper^tiogjof  _the 
government.  Although  a  people  may  T>e  the  most  law-abiding 
and  law-directed  nation  in  the  world,  law  has  not  yet  at 
tained  to  such  efficacy  among  any  people  as  to  frame,  or  ad 
just,  or  administer  itself.  Law  may  restrain  but  it  has  no 
positive  action.  Government  is  action,  but  it  is  something 
more  vital  than  that ;  it  is  or  should  be  a  body  of  men  with  a 
common  task  and  purpose.12 

Constitutional  government  is  one  which  adapts  its  powers 
to  the  interests  of  the  people  and  safeguards  the  right  of  the 
individual.  Such  a  government  is  a  free  government;  a  peo 
ple  that  has  such  a  government  is  a  free  people;  such  a  gov 
ernment  conducted  by  able  and  conscientious  leaders  is  demo 
cratic,  such  a  people  is  a  democracy. 

Liberty  is  the  goal  of  constitutional  and  of  democratic  gov 
ernment.  A  people  is  free  when  it  can  express  itself  in  men 
who  are  chosen  from  its  own  ranks  and  who  are  the  embodi 
ment  of  that  people's  will.  These  leaders  must  be  the  official 
spokesmen  of  the  nation  or  state  as  the  case"  may  be,  and 
therefore  responsible  to  the  people.  There  is  no  one  point 
made  more  emphatic  throughout  Wilson's  writings  than  that 
for  a  people  to  secure  the  proper  adjustment  of  their  govern 
ment  to  the  needs  of  their  daily  life  and  development  and 
thus  be  free,  not  only  good  laws  are  necessary  but  good  lead 
ers  are  indispensable. 

These  leaders  must  be  free  to  formulate  and  carry  out  such 
policies  as  the  needs  of  the  people  demand.  The  government 
cannot  do  this  when  it  is  the  instrument  of  a  particular  class. 

11  Problems  in  Modern  Democracy,  66-67;  Old  Master,  129-38;  Const. 
Govt.  in  U.  S.,  54-66. 
"Old  Master,  136;  Const  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  56-7. 

27 


A  government  will  be  free  only  when  all  individuals  have  equal 
access  to  it.  No  country  can  be  free  as  long  as  it  has  the  view 
that  government  is  the  business  of  a  particular  class  as  dis 
tinguished  from  the  great  mass  of  men.  The  vitality  of  a 
nation  docs  not  depend  upon  the  determination  of  the  policy 
of  the  government  by  a  few  but  it  depends  upon  whether  the 
policy  of  the  government  is  the  expression  of  the  will  of  the 
entire  nation.  And  no  one  class  or  group  can  understand  the 
interests  of  the  whole  people.  Wilson  makes  it  plain  that 
there  is  no  such  thing  in  a  democracy  as  a  particular  class  or 
group  as  distinguished  from  the  mass  who  are  peculiarly  fitted 
to  take  care  of  the  great  body  of  people;  freedom  exists  only 
where  the  whole  people  take  care  of  the  government.13 

The  natural  foe  to_liberty  is  an  irresponsiblegoverning 
group  who  arc  using  the  government  to  serve  theirUwn  selrish 
ends,  and  it  matters  very  little  whether  that  irresponsible  group 
is  a  military  autocracy,  or  a  moneyed  aristocracy,  the. result 
will  be  essentially  the  same  in  the  end.  Therp  wj||  hp  granny 
and  not  freedom.14 

There  must  be  publicity  of  governmental  action  and  free 
dom  of  opinion.  Public  opinion  is  the  atmosphere  of  a  con 
stitutional  government.  The  work  of  the  government  is  the 
work  of  the  public  and  should  be  open  to  the  view  of  the 
public.  Publicity  is  the  sure  antidote  for  insidious  influences 
both  in  legislation  and  in  administration.  This  can  be  had 
only  where  all  the  people  have  access  to  the  government  on 
equal  footing,  and  the  government  is  by  the  many  instead  of 
by  a  class  or  a  group.15 

It  is  a  fundamental  thing  in  a  democracy  and  is  essential  to 
freedom  that  all  men  shall  be  on  equal  footing  and  have  equal 
opportunity  in  self-development,  equal  chance  to  exercise  mas 
tery  over  their  own  fortunes.  This  cannot  be  the  case  when 
only  one  group  has  the  ear  of  the  government  and  shapes  the 
policy  of  the  government  to  its  own  interests. 

It  is  on  these  fundamental  principles  of  liberty  in  a  dem- 

13  The  New  Freedom,  54,  72,  144,  201,  274,  2.'38(  291 ;  Speech  at  \York- 
ingman's    Dinner,    New    York,    Sept.    4,    1912;    Speech    at    Associate  1 
Advertising  Clubs,  Phila.,  June  29,  1916. 

14  Sec  the  above  references;  War  Speech,  Apr.  2,  1917. 

"At  National  Press  Club,  Washington,  D.  C,  Jan.  30,  1911;  At 
City  Club  Meeting,  St.  Louis,  Dec.  28,  1910;  Commercial  Club  Din 
ner,  Portland,  Ore.,  May  18,  1911;  At  Jersey  City  Commission  Plan 
Meeting,  July  14,  1911.  » 

28 


ocracy,  that  is  these  principles,  namely,  that  in  onler  for  a 
people  to  be  free  that  people  must  have  a  government  which 
takes  its  orders  from  all  the  people  and  not  from  a  particular 
group,  and  that  government  should  so  accommodate  itself  to 
the  life  of  the  people  as  to  afford  equal  opportunity  to  all 
men  on  an  equal  footing,  it  is  on  these  that  Wilson  has  acted 
in  his  public  services. 

What  Wilson  did  in  New  Jersey  was  to  dislodge  the  politi 
cal  bosses  who  were  backed  by  certain  strong  interests  of  that 
state  and  the  nation  and  to  restore  the  government  to  the 
people.  He  did  it  by  exercising  the  function  of  his  office  in 
a  purely  constitutional  manner,  as  he  understands  it  and  de 
fines  the  term.  A  government  to  be  constitutional,  according 
to  Wilson,  must  exercise  its  powers  to  the  interest  of  the 
people,  and  a  government,  says  Wilson,  is  the  men  who  con 
duct  the  public  affairs  of  a  community. 

The  separation  of  the  executive  and  legislative  functions 
under  the  constitution  of  the  state  has  the  effect  in  New- 
Jersey  as  well  as  in  all  other  states  of  leaving  the  legislature 
leaderless.  The  governor,  who  is  held  responsible  for  admin 
istering  the  law,  and  therefore,  supremely  alive  to  the  need  for 
legislative  changes  and  reforms,  has  no  direct  means  of  laying 
his  views  before  the  legislative  body  except  through  the  in 
effective  medium  of  a  written  message.  The  legislature  has 
no  constructive  leadership.  The  legislature  is  controlled  by 
a  party  caucus  and  dominated  by  groups  representing  various 
material  interests,  and  directly  susceptible  to  the  vigorous 
lobbying  of  individuals  and  corporations  intent  on  securing 
some  profitable  concession  or  effecting  the  defeat  of  regulative 
and  restrictive  legislation.  Especially  was  this  the  situation 
in  New  Jersey  in  1910,  and  no  matter  which  political  party 
controlled  the  government,  the  result  was  always  the  same. 
The  Governor  was  keenly  aware  of  this  situation  and  was  pre 
pared  to  meet  it  in  an  effective  way. 

Wilson,  from  the. very  beginning  of  his  study  of  politics, 
has  had  a  very  definite  conception  and  conviction  of  what  are 
the  proper  functions  of  the  executive^and  the  legislature. 
There  has  never  been  any  doubt  in  his  mind  on  this  point.  It 
is  the  duty  of  the  executive  to  formulate  and  execute  the 
policies  of  the  government,  to  lead  in  proposing  legislation, 
and  therefore  stand  sponsor  for  all  needed  laws.  In  short, 
the  executive  is  the  government  responsible  for  the  conduct 

29 


of  the  nation  or  stale's  business.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  legis 
lature  to  consult  with  the  government  in  order  to  apprise  it 
of  the  opinion  of  the  nation  or  state  with  regard  to  what  the 
government  is  planning  or  doing;  the  legislature  should  criti 
cise  and  restrain,  should  in>ist  0:1  those  measures  which  the 
nation  or  state  needs  and  resist  those  it  does  not  need;  by 
such  counsel  it  can  reveal  the  whole  intention  of  the  govern 
ment  and  keep  those  who  conduct  it  in  sympathetic  touch  with 
the  real  feeling  and  desire  of  the  people.  The  legislature 
should  be  an  organ  of  control  over  the  government  in  behalf 
of  the  people.  The  executive  should  formulate  the  policies  of 
and  conduct  the  government  subject  to  the  control  of  the  legis 
lative  body,  but  the  latter  should  never  conduct  the  govern 
ment.16 

Furthermore  he  said  during  the  campaign  for  governor  that 
if  he  was  elected  he  would  take  that  to  mean  that  he  had  been 
chosen  leader  of  the  party  in  power  and  the  responsible  rep 
resentative  of  the  whole  people  in  the  conduct  of  the  govern 
ment.  To  his  party  was  committed  the  conduct  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  state  by  a  mandate  from  the  people  to  carry 
out  a  certain  program.  His  party  had  assumed  responsibility 
for  the  performance  of  this  great  task;  he,  being  the  head  of 
that  party,  very  properly  and  promptly  assumed  legislative 
leadership. 

When  the  caucus  met  to  determine  what  action  should  be 
taken  on  the  measures  proposed  by  the  new  leader,  not  only 
were  the  various  interests  and  the  corporations  represented  but 
the  people  of  New  Jersey  were  represented  by  a  man  who 
meant  what  he  said,  a  man  who  had  a  program  and  a  dogged 
determination  to  see  that  it  was  carried  out.  It  was  carried 
out,  and  it  was  carried  out  in  the  spirit  which  he  had  just  pre 
viously  enunciated  when  it  appeared  that  the  political  bosses 
were  planning  to  disregard  the  mandate  of  the  people:  "Ab 
solute  good  faith  in  dealing  with  the  people,  an  unhesitating 
fidelity  to  every  principle  avowed,  is  the  highest  law  of  politi 
cal  morality  under  a  constitutional  government."17  At  last 
the  people  of  New  Jersey  had  secured  access  to  their  govern 
ment,  it  was  freed  from  the  privileged  interests  and  restored 

u  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  11,  14,  15,  24,  102-3,  222;  Atlantic  Monthly, 
vol.  87,  p.  291. 

11  Public  Statement  in  Campaign  against  Ex-Senator  James  Smith 
of  New  Jersey,  Jan.  5,  1911. 

30 


to  the  people.  Wilson,  in  carrying  out  this  program,  was  not 
a  boss  or  a  dictator  but  the  spokesman  and  leader  of  all  the 
people  of  New  Jersey  who  backed  him  with  their  confidence 
and  moral  strength. 

This  program  which  freed  the  people  of  New  Jersey  from 
boss  rule  and  gave  them  a  greatly  increased  measure  of  lib 
erty  was  translated  into  legal  form  by  the  passage  of  the  fol 
lowing  measures:  The  Election  Reform  Bill,  The  Employers' 
Liability  Bill,  The  Public  Utilities  Commission  Bill,  The  Cor 
rupt  Practices  Act,  and  the  Anti-Trust  Bills  known  as  the 
Seven  Sisters. 

When  Wilson  became  President,  he  found  the  situation  in 
the  nation  very  similar  to  that  in  New  Jersey,  differing  only 
in  intensity  and  magnitude.  He  found  a  situation  which  con 
travened  every  article  of  his  political  philosophy.  The  govern 
ment  took  its  orders  from  the  big  interests,  public  opinion  had 
no  effective  access  to  the  government^  life  was  hard  for  the 
average  man,  equality  of  opportunity  was  a  myth;  there  was 
no  inducement  for  the  small  business  man  to  ma&e  investments 
or  venture  out  into  any  enterprise  in  competition  with  the 
trusts  and  monopolies,  in  short  the  government  was  the  in 
strument  of  the  great  trusts  and  monopolies  of  the  country. 
These  powerful  concerns  stood  between  the  people  and  their 
government ;  it  was  no  longer  a  government  based  on  the  con 
sent  of  the  governed  but  was  a  government  of  the  few  by  the 
few  for  the  few.  It  was  a  constitutional  government  only  in 
name.  Under  such  a  system  the  vitality  of  the  nation  had 
reached  the  minimum.18 

/. — So  it  was  natural  that  Wilson  should  declare  war  on  privi- 
/  lege  and  vested  interests.  These  combinations  were  prevent- 
l  ing  the  freedom  of  individuals  and  the  progress  of  societ} 
\- which  are  the  fundamental  objects  of  government. 

He  came  before  Congress  in  person  with  a  comprehensive 
and  deliberately  concerted  program  that  had  for  its  purpose 
the  divorcing  of  the  government  from  the  trusts  and  monopo 
lies  and  the  emancipation  of  the  people  from  the  fetters  im 
posed  by  these  great  commercial  and  financial  interests.  The 
measures  enacted  for  the  overthrow  of  this  tyranny  of  special 
privilege  lowered  the  tariff  wall,  curtailed  the  power  of  the 

18  The  New  Freedom  is  an  elaborate  discussion  of  the  situation  in 
the  United  States  and  the  best  means  of  restoring  the  government  to 
the  people. 

31 


trusts,  stabilized  finance  and  opened  up  new  paths  of  access  to 
credit  by  a  broad  measure  of  currency  reform. 

Another  phase  of  the  legislative  program  of  President  Wil 
son  may  be  designated  as  Labor  and  Social  reform.  Every 
quality  in  the  character  of  Woodrow  Wilson  makes  him  a 
social  reformer.  He  has  always  spoken  out  unhesitatingly  for 
any  changes  or  adjustments  in  society  which  will  enhance  the 
progress  and  welfare  of  the  people.  Every  piece  of  social 
and  labor  legislation  passed  under  his  leadership  in  Congress 
is  heartily  in  harmony  with  the  very  principle  of  liberty.  Lib 
erty  in  the  last  analysis  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the 
proper  functioning  of  a  democracy.  For  a  democracy  to  func 
tion  properly  there  must  be  something  besides  a  government 
organization,  there  must  be  the  emancipation  of  the  generous 
energies  of  the  people.  This  is  accomplished  by  giving  to  the 
people  a  chance  to  make  a  living  and  an  opportunity  to  be 
self-sustaining  and  self -developing:  by  humanizing  industry- 
through  the  direct  action  of  law  guaranteeing  protection 
against  dangers  and  compensation  for  injuries;  guaranteeing 
sanitary  conditions,  proper  hours,  the  right  to  organize,  and 
guaranteeing  to  the  working  man  that  his  labor  is  not  a  com 
modity  or  article  of  commerce  but  is  a  part  of  his  life. 

The  attempt  to  vitalize  and  invigorate  the  nation  by  giving 
to  the  average  man  a  chance  is  what  has  been  sought  by  the 
passage  of  the  long  list  of  social  reform  measures.  The 
Underwood  Tariff  Act,  The  Federal  Reserve  Act  and  the 
Clayton  Anti-Trust  Act  contributed  in  no  little  part  in  effect 
ing  this  result;  but  the  measures  which  were  to  have  for 
their  single  purpose  this  object  were  The  Seaman's  Act,  The 
Child  Labor  Act,-The  Rural  Credits  Act  and  The  Adamson 
Railway  Act.  The  object  of  these  great  measures  is  to  re 
lease  the  vital  energies  of  the  people  and  allow  the  people  to 
assert  themselves  as  free  men,  to  put  all  men  on  as  nearly 
an  equal  footing  and  afford  as  nearly  an  equal  opportunity 
for  all  as  the  complex  relations  of  modern  society  will  per 
mit,  and  thus  encourage  individual  effort,  elevate  human  en- 
deaver  and  promote  the  happiness  of  the  mass. 

Liberty,  the  highest  principle  of  democracy,  has  been  the 
impelling  force  that  has  guided  Woodrow  Wilson  in  his  for 
eign  relations  as  well  as  in  his  domestic  program.  He  has 
clung  to  it  with  religious  fervor,  it  has  been  the  goal  toward 
which  he  has  steadily  marched  in  all  his  public  services. 


This  high  principle  of  democracy  was  put  to  the  supreme 
test  by  the  Mexican  situation.  There  was  the  cry  of  Ameri 
can  concessionaires  for  intervention  in  Mexico  to  secure  their 
ofttimes  fraudulently  acquired  interest  on  the  one  hand,  and 
on  the  other,  besides  American  principles  which  were  at  stake, 
there  was  an  enslaved,  oppressed  people  struggling  for  free 
dom.  The  issue  was  plain.  He  said,  "Human  rights,  national 
integrity,  and  opportunity  as  against  material  interests,  that  is 
the  issue  we  have  to  face."19  To  him  the  proper  course  was 
perfectly  clear.  He  holds  it  as  a  fundamental  principle  of 
democracy  and  constitutional  government,  the  very  essence  of 
political  liberty  that  every  people  shall  determine  its  own 
form  and  character  of  government.  "It  is  none  of  my  busi 
ness,  and  it  is  none  of  your  business,  how  long  they  take  in 
determining  it.  It  is  none  of  my  business,  and  it  is  none  of 
yours,  how  they  go  about  the  business.  The  country  is  theirs, 
the  government  is  theirs,  and  the  liberty,  if  they  can  get  St 
and  God  speed  them  in  getting  it! — is  theirs,  and  so  far  as  my 
influence  goes,  while  I  am  President,  nobody  shall  interfere 
with  it. 

"Haven't  the  European  nations  taken  as  long  as  they  wanted 
and  spilled  as  much  blood  as  they  pleased  in  settling  their  af 
fairs?  Shall  we  deny  that  to  Mexico  because  she  is  weak?"20 

Wilson  meant  to  see  to  it  that  the  United  States  did  not 
deprive  the  people  of  Mexico  of  a  chance  to  establish  a  con 
stitutional  government  just  merely  to  allow  a  few  foreign 
concessionaires  to  use  this  government  to  intervene  and  set 
up  another  Diaz  despotism  for  their  interests.  He  did  not  in 
tervene  ;  to  intervene  was  the  practical  thing  but  not  the  right 
thing  to  do.  "\Ve  dare  not  turn  from  the  principle  that  mo r- 

;ality  and  not  expediency  is  the  thing  that1  "must  guide  us,  and 
^aT  we  will  nevercorKlflrie'  miqutEy because r  it  is~mosr  o)n- 
venient~TcT^6~so7rfl  So  he  did  not  do  the  expedient  thmgEut 
the  thing'xvhll'h  "the  intefestsjot  humanity  dictated.  Although" 
he  had  a  storm  of  severe  criticism  to  meet,  he  has*  stood  by  his 
principles  firmly,  unswervingly,  and  triumphantly. 

Mr.  Wilson's  policy  in  dealing  with  the  Philippine  Islands 
in  their  program  for  independence,  with  Colombia  with  regard 
to  the  Panama  situation,  with  China  with  regard  to  the  Six 
Power  Loan,  were  all  based  on  this  principle  of  democracy. 

19  The  Southern  Commercial  Congress,  Mobile,  Oct.  27,   1913. 

20  At  Indianapolis,  Jan.  8,  1915. 

21  So.  Com.  Cong.,'  Oct.  27,  1913. 

33 


Wilson  has  always  stood  on  the  jmnciplc  that  the  cntcr- 

enterprise  of  humanity.     It  should 


_ 

tc  the  ideal  of  government  to  serve  humanity,  to  elevate  so 
ciety  and  to  advance  civilization  hy  making  the  people  free. 
This  he  had  successfully  done  in  the  United  States.  So  when 
the  irresponsible  German  government  sought  to  destroy  the 
institutions  of  liberty,  set  aside  the  safeguard  against  tyranny, 
gradually  established  through  ages  of  persistent  struggle  by 
the  human  race  seeking  freedom;  in  short,  when  Germany 
sought  permanently  to  menace  civilization,  Wilson  did  not 
broaden  the  horizon  of  his  political  philosophy  but  merely  ex 
tended  the  scope  of  its  application  so  that  he  might  cooperate 
with  the  other  nations  of  the  earth  against  "this  natural  foe 
to  liberty."  He  says,  "We  are  glad  ...  to  fight  for  the  ulti 
mate  peace  of  the  world  and  for  the  liberation  of  its  peoples. 
The  German  peoples  included  ;  for  the  rights  of  nations  great 
and  small  and  the  privilege  of  men  everywhere  to  choose  their 
way  of  life  and  obedience.  The  world  must  be  made  safe  for 
democracy.  Its  peace  must  be  planted  upon  the  tested  foun 
dations  of  political  liberty."22 

Wilson  is  no  provincial  ;  but  is  a  democrat  with  a  vision  as 
broad  as  humanity,  his  spirit  craves  political  liberty  for  the 
human  race  —  an  indispensable  requisite  for  the  undictated  de 
velopment  of  the  peoples  of  the  earth,  for  a  sound  society,  for 
a  wholesome  well-rounded  civilization  and  a  lasting  peace. 

**  In  Speech,  Apr.  2,  1917  ;  cf.  Letter  to  Russia,  June  9,  1917,  and 
letter  in  reply  to  Pope's  Peace  Proposals,  August  27,  1917. 


34 


w 


LEADERSHIP 

"A  living  people  needs  not  a  master  but  a  leader."1     A  na- 
tion  must  express  itself  in  men,  that  is,  in^eajlerSi^ 


ig_irnj)cr  son  a  t  ed_jj.ojjcjes .     Whether  the  government  will 
HeTgood  or  bad,  is  determined  jjyi  the  character  and  fitness  of 
the  men  who  conduct  it.  TfGood  laws  and  excellent  mechan-71 
/    /jsm  of  action  in  charters  and  constitutions  are  necessary  but-] 
/L leaders  are  indispensable  to  the  successful  operation  of  any 
'   government.2 

It  is  impossible  for  government  to  operate  without  leader 
ship  and  if  this  leadership  is  not  supplied  from  within  the 
government,  it  must  be  supplied  from  without.  Wilson,  speak 
ing  to  the  point  on  this  matter,  says,  "It  may  be  laid  down  as 
a  political  maxim  that  wjien  the  several  cJiiejjHgajQs.jpJ_gov- 
ernment  are  separated  by  organic  law,  and  offset  against  each 
other  in  jealous  seclusion,  no  common  legaljauthority^  set  over 
them,  no  necessary  cpmmunity_pf_ jntezest  subsisting  among 
them,  no  common  origin  or  purpose  dominating  them,  they 
must  of  necessity,  if  united  at  all,  be  united  Jxy ;  pressure  from 
without;  and  they  must  be  united  if  government  is  to  proceed. 
They  cannot  remain  checked  and  balanced  against  one  an 
other  ;  they  must  act,  and  act  together.  They  must,  therefore,  I1 
of  their  own  will  or  of  mere  necessity  obey  an  outside  master.''3 

It  is  very  apparent  that  "Wilson  4£  making  a.  plea  iorj.\yo 
things:  the  cooperation  of  mevarious  organs  of  government 
toward  a  single  end;  and  for  responsible  leadership.  The  co 
operation  of  the  organs  of  the  government  can  be  secured 
by  lodging  leadership  in  some  one  organ  of  the  government; 
and  responsible  leadership  may  be  had  only  through  official 
leaders,  that  is,  "leaders  who  can  be  held  immediately  respon 
sible  for  the  action  and  policy  of  the  government,  alike  upon 
its  legislative  and  upon  its  administrative  side."4 

1  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  34. 

•Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  90,  p.  733;  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.  17;  Old 
Master,  134. 

*  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  211. 
4  Address  to  the  Virginia  Bar  Association,  March  3-5,  1897. 

35 


With  the  mechanical  theory  of  checks  and  balances,  Wilson 
has  no  patience.    In  fact  he  says,  "The  trouble  with  this  theory    ».// 
is  that  government  is  not  a  machine,  but  a  living  thing  ... 
It  is  mocnfieJ  by  its^nviroiimcnt.  necessitated  by   its  tasks, 
shaped  to  its  functions  byjthe  sheer  pressure  of  life.     No  liv-  ( 
ing  thing  can   have   its   organs   offset   against   each   other   as 
checks  and  live.     On  the  contrary,  its  life  is  dependent  upon 
their  quick  cooperation,  their  ready  response  to 


of  instinct  or  intelligence,  their  amicable  community  of  pur 
pose.  Government  is  not  a  body  of  blind  forces;  it  is  a  body 
of  men  .  .  .  with  a  common  task  and  purpose.  Their  cooperation 
is  indispensable,  their  warfare  fatal.  There  can  be  no  suc 
cessful  government  without  leadership  or  without  the  inti 
mate,  almost  instinctive,  coordination  of  the  organs  of  life 
and  action.  This  is  not  theory,  but  fact,  and  displays  its  force 
as  fact,  whatever  theories  may  be  thrown  across  its  track."5 
To  this  same  point,  he  says,  "Leadership  and  control  must  be 
lodged  somewhere  ;  the  whole  ^ajt_p^^tatesrnanship  is  the  art 
of  bringing  Jhe  several  parts  of  government  into  effective  co 
operation  Jforjhe  accomplishment  of  particular_cgjnrnon  ^  ob^ 


If  leadership  must  be  lodged  in  some  one  organ  of  the  gov 
ernment,  which  shall  it  be  ?  Shall  it  be  that  organ  which  for 
mulates  and  executes  the  policy  of  the  government,  the  ex 
ecutive,  or  shall  it  be  the  organ  which  controls  the  government 
or  executive  by  counsel  and  discussion  in  behalf  of  the  people, 
that  is  the  legislative  body?  Wilson  makes  it  very  definite, 
as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  that  it  is  never  the  proper 
function  of  representative  assemblies  to  conduct  the  govern 
ment,  but  that  the  selection  of  the  policy  andjhe__conduct  of 
the  government  is  the  natural  function 


From  the  foregoing  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  Wilson 
believes :  first,  that  a  theory  of  checks  and  balances  has  dem 
onstrated  its  impracticability  in  the  successful  operation  of 
government.  Second,  that  in  order  for_agovernment  to  oper 
ate  successfully  there  must  not  only^e^Te^xIeT^jrFut  tHeTe 
must  be  responsible  official  leadership.  Third,  that  responsi-  \  | 
ble  leadership  must" be  lodged  in  one  of  the  organs  of  govern 
ment;  in  that  organ  which^plaiis"and  executes  the  policy  of 
the  government,  thejexecutive  organ. 

•  Const  Govt.  in  U.  S.f  56-57. 
•Ibid.,  54. 


In  turning  'from  these  general  observations  on  leadership 
to  Wilson's  actual  leadership  as  Governor  of  New  Jersey  and 
as  President  of  the  United  Stales,  his  attitude  toward  politi 
cal  parties  must  be  noted. 

He  makes  it  plain  that  for  the  United  States  to  have  respon- 
sible  leadership,  it  must  have  a  real  party  government.  The 
policy  of  the  party  in  power  must  be  the  policy  of  the  govern 
ment,  the  leaders. oJLthe  .party,  must  be_thejeaders,in.  forming 

H  "  -,       y^*~ff^       *~  fc^    -*K_  \J  ^C- 

/the  policy  and  conducting  the  ^oyernment^.tlie_hea^LojL4he 
paTtyr'musl"5e~the  responsible  head  of  thej[oyeffln35h'rT  ~This 
isuie  only  means  of  getting  rid  of  the  in^sp_gnsjble__rx)litical 
boss  in  this  country.  The  rise  and  development  of  the  boslf  is 
noT'unnatural  nor  is  it  due  to  any  political  disease  in  society. 
/  "As  a  matter  of  fact,"  says  Wilson,  "the  whole  thing  is  just 
as  normal  and  natural  as  any  other  political  development.  The 
part  that  the  party  has  played  in  this  country  has  been  both 
necessary  and  beneficial,  and  if  bosses  and  secret  managers 
are  often  undesirable  persons,  playing  their  part  for  their  own 
benefit  or  glorification  rather  than  for  the  public  good,  they; 
are  at  least  the  natural  fruits  of  the  tree.  It  has  borne  fruitj 

/\/^ — -^—- —  /u^- 

good  and  bad,  sweet  and  bitter,  wholesome  and  corrupt,  but  it\ 
is  native  to  our  air  and  practice,  and  can  be  uprooted  only  byj 
an  entire  change  of  system."7 

In  the  United  States  the  party_bossj£s__select j>ub1i£_jjffiaals 
and  dictate  the  policy  of  the  government  but  are  not  responsi- 
ble  to  anyone  because  they  are  outside  of  the  governmental 
^organization.  This  is  peculiarjojhe  American  system.  Wil 
son  says,  "Under  every  other  system  of  government  which  is 
representative  in  character  and  which  attempts  to  adjust  the 
action  of  government  to  the  wishes  and  interests  of  the  peo 
ple,  the  organization  of  parties  is,  in  a  sense,  indistinguishable 
from  the  organs  of  government  itself.  Party  finds  its  organic 
lodgment  in  the  national  legislative  and  executive  themselves. 
The  several  active  parts  of  the  government  are  closely  united 
in  organization  for  a  common  purpose,  because  they  are  under 
a  common  direction  and  themselves  constitute  the  machinery 
of  party  control.  Parties  do  not  have  to  supply  themselves 
with  separate  organs  of  their  own  outside  the  government  and 
intended  to  dictate  its  policy,  because  such  separate  organs 
are  unnecessary.  The  j^espon sible  organs  j^f  .goyprnnipnt  are 

» Ibid.,  210. 

1    -  -H  ( < 
(  * 

37 


The_action^of  opimon_iippn_  __ 


also  the  avowed  orans  of 


~TT~tlicre  is  to  be  responsible  leadership  and  direction  in  the 
nation's  a  flairs,  the  head  of  the  party  in  power  must  be  the 
head  of  the  government,  he  must  stand  sponsor  for  all  legis 
lative  changes,  aiul  must  be  the  responsible  and  official  spokes 
man  for  the  nation.  When  a  man  is  chosen  by  a  party  as  its 
candidate  for  the  governorship  of  a  state  or  for  the  presidency 
of  the  nation,  that  should  mean  that  he  has  been  chosen  the 
party  leader  in  that  state  or  in  the  nation  as  the  case  might 
be.  And  he  should  be  the  head  and  spokesman  for  the  govern 
ment,  the  conduct  of  which  has  been  committed  to  his  party. 

In  lectures  at  Columbia  University  in  1908,  Wilson  spoke 
with  what  would  almost  appear  to  be  prophetic  vision  of  what 
the  presidency  should  be  and  would  be  in  the  future.     Speak 
ing  of  the  Resident's  position  of  leadership,  he  said,   "He,!/  .  /    , 
canno_t  ^sca^ejbejngjthjejead^er  of  his  party  exce^JbjLJncarjac-  ft 
ity  and  lack  p^pej;sjDnaJLlorce,_because  he  is  at  once  the  choice  |J  vu 
of  the  party-and.  the  nation.     He  is  the  party  nominee,  and 
'the  only   party   nominee    for   whom   the   whole  nation   votes. 
Members  of  the  House  and  Senate  are  representatives  of  lo 
calities,  are  voted  for  only  by  sections  of  voters.  .  .  .  There 
is  no  national  party  choice  except  that  of  President.     ]^o  one( 
else  represents  the  people  as  a  whole,  exercising  a  national 
choice  ;  aruT  in  as  inu  cTT^s~rns~st  ri  c  tly  executive  duties  are  in 
fact  subordinated,  so  far  at  any  rate  as  all  detail  is  concerned, 
the  President  represents  not  so  much  the  party's  governing 
efficiency  as  its  controlling  ideals  and  principles.     He  is  jiot  , 
so  much  part  of  its  organi_za^ri^s  j^s_yjtajjink  of  connection  * 
with  the  tlmiking^riation.  <^Te_c^n_dpjTiinat€~rits  party  by  being 
sgokesman_for  thej-eal  sentiment  and  purpose  of  the  country, 
by  gi  vmg^d[rectip^  to^b^imon7  by  givingjhe  country  at  once 
the  information^  andT  the  "statemejUs  of  policy  which  will  £&= 
able  it  to—form  its  judgments  alike  of  parties  andj>f_merL 

"For  he  is  also  the  political  leader  of  the  nation,  or  has  it 
in  his  choice  to  be.  The  nation  as  a  whole  has  chpsen  him, 
and  is  conscious  that  it  has  no  other  political  spokesman.  His 
is  the  only  national  voice  in  affairs.  Let  him  once  win  the 

f  flip  rnnntry,  aiKl  nn 


force  can  withstand^  him,  no/combination 

overpower  him.     His  position  takes  the  imagination  of  the 

•Ibid.,  211-212. 

38 


country.  lie  is  the  representative  of  no  constituency,  but  of 
the  whole  people.  When  he  speaks  in  his  true  character,  he 
speaks  for  no  special  interest.  If  he  rightly  interprets  the 
national  thought  and  boldly  insists  upon  it,  he  is  irresistible; 
and  the  Country  never  feels  the  zest  of  action  so  much  as  when 
its  President  is  of  such  insight  and  calibre.  Its  instinct  is 
for  united  action,  and  it  craves  a  single  leader.  It  is  for  this 
reason  that  it  will  often  prefer  to  cITbose  a  man  rather  than  a 


party.     A  President  whom  it  trusts  can  not  onlyleacl 
form  it  to  his  own  views."9 

Then  according  to  Wilson,  the  President  should  be  the 
spokesman  of  the  nation,  not  only  in  suggesting  new  and 
needed  legislation  but  he  must  interpret  the  will  of  the  coun 
try  with  regard  to  any  new  problem  touching  the  interest  of 
the  people  at  home  or  abroad.  He  must  also  form  and  ex 
press  the  opinion  of  the  nation  by  keeping  himself  in  constant 
touch  with  what  the  people  are  doing,  with  what  they  are 
enduring  and  what  they  are  needing.  Just  what  is  the  func 
tion  of  a  leader  may  be  made  clear  by  the  following  quotation : 
"Leadership,  I  take  it,  is  a  task  of  suggestion^)  f  adaptation. 

_jiing^ o fjthought  and  the  Hevjsjng  oj^  means/'1"  " 

Wilson  went  to  the  core  of  the  matter  when  he  said,  ''He 
must  be  Prime  Minister,  as  much  concerned  with  the  guidance 
of  legislation  as  with  the  just  and  orderly  execution  of  the 
law;  and  he  is  the  spokesman  of  the  nation  in  everything, 
even  the  most  momentous  and  most  delicate  dealings  of  the 
government  with  foreign  nations."11 

To  the  argument  that  it  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  prin 
ciples  of  the  Constitution  for  the  President  to  assume  the  po 
sition  of  leader  in  the  conduct  of  the  government,  Wilson 
says,  "There  can  be  no  mistaking  the  fact  that  we  have  grown 
more  and  more  inclined  from  generation  to  generation  to  look 
to  the  ?re^^n^^t^_^ifjjng_jarj^e  in  our  complex  system, 
the  leader  both  of  his  party  and  of  the  nation.  To  do  so  is_not 
jnconsistent  with_lhe  actual  provisions  of  the  Constitution ;  7t 
is  only  incqnjistejai^Yitl^  theory  of  its  mean- 

in^an^rTntention.    The  Constitution  contain^  no  theories.     It 

•  Ibid.,  67-68. 

10  Address  at  Governors'  Conference,  Frankfort,  Ky.,  Nov.  jy,  1910; 
see  also  parts  of  speeches  to  Stevens  Institute  Alumni,  Hoboken,   X. 
J.,  Feb.  8,  1911,  and  at  Tariff  Exhibit,  New  York,  Sept.  9,  1912. 

11  Letter  to  A.  Mitchell  Palmer,  Feb.  13,  1913. 

39 


is  as  practical  a  document  as  Magna  Carta."12  In  this  same 
spirit  lie  again  says,  "The  Presidents  who  have  not  made 
themselves  leaders  have  lived  no  more  truly  on  that  account 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  than  those  whose  force  has 
told  in  the  determination  of  law  and  policy  .  .  .  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  is  not  a  mere  lawyers'  document: 
it  is  a  vehicle  of  life,  and  its  spirit  is  always  the  spirit  of  the 
age."1' 

Wilson  let  it  be  known  during  the  gubernatorial  campaign  in 
New  Jersey  that  if  he  was  elected  governor,  he  would  not 
only  be  leader  of  his  party  but  the  spokesman  for  the  govern 
ment  and  the  leader  in  legislation.  He  came  to  the  Presidency 
at  the  head  of  a  great  national  party  which  had  pledged  itself 
to  carry  out  a  far-reaching  legislative  program.  He  announced 
that,  as  head  of  this  party,  he  would  be  leader  in  the  execution 
of  that  program.  He  has  certainly  made  good  his  promises. 
The  promised  program  has  been  carried  out  and  it  has  been 
carried  out  under  his  successful  legislative  leadership. 

To  make  vital,  vigorous  and  effective  his  leadership  of  Con 
gress,  he  not  only  did  the  dramatic  thing  of  appearing  before 
'Congress  with  a  message,  but  his  message  was  a  program  of 
legislation,  a  message  in  which  he  recited  the  need  for  and  an 
outline  of  the  proposed  legislation.    By  this  act,  he  excited  the 
imagination  and  gained  the  calm  admiration_of  the _countr y_at 
larg£.    AncPmore  "importanT~than  tKII7~was  the  fa~ct  thaT~he 
J:ame  before  Congress  with  only  one  <or_twp_jtejTis__al_a^jirne 
for  legislative  action.    In  this  way  the  public  was  abh 
low  him  with   intelligent   attention   and  Interest,   which   was 
^practically  unknown  before  in  an  American  Congress., 

It  is  interesting  in  view  of  what  has  been  said  to  note  not 
only  the  tact  with  which  he  begins  his  address  to  the  first  joint 
meeting  of  both  Houses,  but  the  frank  and  unhesitating  way 
in  which  he  asserts  that  leadership  to  which  the  position  of 
President  of  the  United  States  entitles  him. 

"I  am  glad  indeed,"  says  Wilson,  "to  have  this  opportunity 
to  address  the  two  Houses  directly  and  to  verify  for  myself 
the  impre>sion  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  a 
person,  not  a  mere  department  of  the  government  hailing  Con 
gress  from  an  isolated  island  of  jealous  power,  sending  mes 
sages,  not  speaking  naturally  and  v.ith  his  own  voice — that  he 

12  Const.  Govt.  in  U.  S.,  60. 

13  Ibid.,  70. 

40 


is  a  human  being  trying  to  cooperate  with  other  human  beings 
in  a  common  service.  After  this  pleasant  experience  I  shall 
feel  quite  normal  in  all  our  dealings  with  one  another."14 

This  departure  from  the_traditionaj  practice  of  sending 
to  CongresT^anongTiresome,  complicated,  written  message  was 
received  by  the  people  with  positive  approval.  THey  regarded 
it  more  or  less  as  somewhat  of  a  deliverance  from  the  usual 
and  characteristic  chaos  and  unirUeTIigible  procedure  in  a 
leaderless  Congress.  Feeling  that  hi  •, "leliclership  was  recog 
nized  and  conceded  by  those  both  in  and  out  of  Congress,  he 
appeared  before  Congress  the  second  time  with  much  in 
creased  assurance  as  is  indicated  by  this  statement:  "I  have 
come  to  you  as  the  head  of  the  Government  and  the  responsi 
ble  leader  of  the  party  in  power,  to  urge  action  now,  while 
there  is  time  to  serve  the  country  deliberately  and  as  we 
should,  in  a  clear  air  of  common  counsel."13 

Most  of  the  important  laws  passed  under  his  leadership 
have  been  briefly  noted  in  Chapter  IV  together  with  their  gen 
eral  intent.  But  it  is  in  place  here  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
Wilson  jit  no  time  has  shown  any  desire  whatever^  to  shirk  the 
r,espoiisib  il i ty^r~tedeTshJ£r  He  has  hacTThe  keen  political 
insight  and  sagacity  to  see  that  the  enormous  size  of  the 
Unjted_  jtatesjiccessita_tes  tjie  exercise  ojj:>e_r^uas]ve_po\ve^r  by 
a  dominant  mind  in  Jhe  shaping  of  popular  judgments,  and 
that  the  President  is  the  one  person  about  whorrTa  definite 
national  opinion  is  formed  and  is,  therefore,  the  one  person 
who  can  form  opinion  by  his  own  direct  influence  and  act  upon 
the  whole  country  at  once.  So  he  is  the  one  person  who 
should  assume  responsibility,  to  speak  and  act  for  the  whole 
people.  President  Wilson  has  acted  upon  this  conception  of 
his  office  and  any  duty  that  comes  within  this  broad  compass 
of  official  service,  he  has  unhesitatingly  assumed  responsibility 
for  its  direction  and  execution. 

Congress  as  the  national  representative  assembly  would  be 
a  very  effective  body  as  the  organ  of  public  opinion  to  consult 
with  the  administration  and  keep  the  government  in  sympa 
thetic  touch  with  the  needs  and  interests  of  the  people,  but  it 
has  chosen^ to_bc^  part  of  the  administration.  It  stands  alone 
among  the  legislative~bo3Ies  oTtho  vuilu  in  so  doing.  And 
in  its  attempt  to  be  a  part  of  the  governing  organ  it  has  so 

14  Address  to  Congress,  Apr.  8,  1913. 

15  Address  to  Congress,  June  23,  1913. 

41 


completely  neglected  its  real  and  vital  function  of  discussion 
and  counsel  that  it  is  n^>  longer  seriously  regarded  as  a  repre 
sentative  chamber  speaknigThe  \viTI  of  thejnation.  So  natur 
ally  the  people  have  turned  to  the  one  source  for  suggestion, 
direction,  iftid  leadership  —  to  the  President. 

It  is  singularly  important  to  know  that  upto  the  time  Wood-/;.  /* 
row  Wilson  came  into  public  life  he  cither  was  not  interested  j 
in  the  foreign  affairs  of  the  United  States,  or  was  less  mtcr 
ested  in  tlusjield  of  our~publicjife_than  in  the  institutions_ano 
operation  of  the  government  at  home.    He  had  spoken  of  the 
principles  upon  which  we  should  act  in  our  relations  with  the 
Philippine  Islands,  always  insisting  that  we  deal  with  them  in 
the  true  spirit  of  our  institutions;  that  we  should  give  them 
a  constitutional  government  based  upon  justice  and  intended 
distinctly  for  their  good  and  not   for  our  aggrandizement.16 
And  it  is  interesting  to  see  that  this  was  still  his  attitude  when 
he  became  President  and  had  to  deal  with  these  people.17 

Woodrow  Wilson^s  greatest  achievements  arejiqt  thejegis- 
lative  enactments  upon  tariff,  currency,  and  trusts,  however 
Important  these  may  be;  but  they  are  his  contributions  to 
sound  jnternatignal  policies  and  conduct.  He  has  lost  no  op- 
portunity  when  discussing  foreign  affairs  to  emphasize  the 
high  principles  for  which  America  stands  and  to  impress  upon 
the  people  the  fact  that  the  United  States  was  founded  to 
serve  mankind  and  should  adhere  with  renewed  vigor  and_de- 
vo5ontp__tjus  loTty^purpose^  He  has  macleit  plain  that  the 

that  the  United  States  wishes 


nothing  thatT>eTongs~lo  another  nation,  to  serve  mankind  is 
her  aim. 

In  dealing  with  Mexico,  Latin  America,  and  China,  Wilson 
reversed  the  policy  of  his  predecessors.  With  regard  to  Mexi 
co  he  spoke  of  the  obligation  of  the  United  States  government 
in  the  protection  of  American  interests,  but  first  with  him  was 
the  obligation  to  Mexico  herself.  He  meant  to  give  the  Mexi 
can  people  a  chance  to  set  up  a  constitutional  government,  and 
he  was  determined  that  nothing  should  turn  him  from  this 
course.  It  was  only  under  such  a  government  that  these 
people  would  be  content  and  have  peace.  And  the  time  it 

7 

"Const,  ^iovt.  in  U.  S.,  52-53:  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  90,  p.  731. 

17  Message  to  the  Citizens  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  Oct.  6,  1913. 
Address  at  Swarthmore  College,  Oct.  25,  1913,  and  at  Independence 
Hall  same/day. 


took  them  to  establish  such  a  government  was  not  a  matter 
that  he  felt  called  upon  to  determine.  "The  peace,  prosperity, 
and  contentment  of  Mexico,'*  said  Wilson,  "means  more,  much 
more,  to  us  than  merely  an  enlarged  field  for  our  commerce 
and  enterprise.  They  mean  an  enlargement  of  the  field  of  self- 
government  and  the  realization  of  the  hopes  and  rights  of  a 
nation  with  whose  best  aspirations,  so  long  suppressed  and 
disappointed,  we  deeply  sympathize."18  Again  at  Indianapolis 
in  1915  he  emphasized  his  friendship  for  the  Mexican  people 
and  his  determination  to  see  that  their  liberties,  such  as  they 
might  be,  were  not  menaced  by  the  government  of  the  United 
States  for  the  foreign  concessionaire  interests.  He  said,  "Now 
there  is  one  thing  I  have  got  a  great  enthusiasm  about,  and 
that  is  human  liberty.  ...  I  hold  it  as  a  fundamental  prin 
ciple,  and  so  do  you,  that  every  people  has  the  right  to  de 
termine  its  own  form  of  government;  and  until  this  recent 
revolution  in  Mexico,  until  the  end  of  the  Diaz  reign,  eighty 
per  cent  of  the  people  of  Mexico  never  had  a  'look  in'  in  de 
termining  who  should  be  their  governor,  or  what  their  gov 
ernment  should  be.  Now,  I  am  for  the  eighty  per  cent.  It 
is  none  of  my  business  and  it  it  is  none  of  your  business,  how 
long  they  take  in  determining  it.  It  is  none  of  my  business 
and  it  is  none  of  yours  how  they  go  about  the  business.  The 
country  is  theirs.  The  Government  is  theirs.  The  liberty,  if 
they  can  get  it,  and  God  speed  them  in  getting  it,  is  theirs. 
And  so  far  as  my  influence  goes  twhile  I  am  President  nobody 
shall  interfere  with  them."  After  pointing  out  that  the  coun 
tries  of  Europe  have  taken  all  the  time  "they  wanted  and 
spilt  as  much  blood  as  they  pleased  in  settling  their  affairs," 
he  said  "shall  we  deny  that  to  Mexico  because  she  is  weak? 
No,  I  say !  I  am  proud  to  belong  to  a  strong  nation  that  says : 
'This  country,  which  we  could  crush,  shall  have  just  as  much 
freedom  in  her  own  affairs  as  we  have.  If  I  am  strong,  I 
am  ashamed  to  bully  the  weak.  In  proportion  to  my  strength 
is  my  pride  in  withholding  that  strength  from  the  oppression 
of  another  people.'  I  know  .  .  .  that  that  is  the  sentiment 
of  the  American  people."19  So  it  is  evident  that  Wilson  pro 
posed  to  establish  peaceful  friendly  relations  between  the 
United  States  and  Mexico  by  showing  Mexico  that  the  United 

18  Address  to  Congress,  Aug.  27,  1913 ;  see  also  Speech  at  Southern 
Commercial  Congress,  Oct.  29,  1913. 

19  Address  at  Indianapolis,  Jan.  8,  1915. 

43 


States  was  a  friend  that  could  be  trusted,  and  that  the  liber 
ties  and  rights  of  the  Mexican  people  should  not  be  menaced 
by  the  concessionaire  interests  of  America  using  the  govern 
ment  as  a  collecting  agency.  He  has  stood  firm  on  the  con 
viction  that  a  country  has  a  right  to  live  its  own  independent 
life.  Although  for  a  while  this  policy  with  regard  to  Mexico 
seemed  destined  to  failure,  it  now  appears  that  it  was  the 
wisest  course  available.  For  we  are  at  peace  with  Mexico 
today,  a  time  when  it  is  essential  that  we  throw  the  whole 
strength  of  the  nation  into  the  struggle  for  existence.  Any 
other  policy  than  the  one  adopted  by  Wilson  could  hardly  have 
produced  such  fortunate  relations  between  the  two  countries. 
This  same  policy  of  friendship  and  mutual  advantage  was 
adopted  toward  all  the  Latin  American  States  with  equal 
success. 

Mr.  Wilson  refused  to  encourage  the  American  bankers  in 
participating  in  the  Six  Power  Loan  to  China  because  such  a 
policy  might  lead  to  an  interference  in  the  political  affairs  of 
China.  The  responsibility  for  such  a  possible  result  was  ob 
noxious  to  the  principles  on  which  the  American  government 
rests.  He  stated  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  were  in 
terested  in  China,  especially  on  account  of  the  recent  awaken 
ing.  And,  too,  the  United  States  was  interested  in  trade  rela 
tionships,  but  "our  interests  are  those  of  the  open  door — a  door 
of  friendship  and  mutual  advantage.  This  is  the  only  door  we 
care  to  enter/'20  At  no  time  was  \Vilson  willing  to  foster 
Airie rican  trade  and  commercial  enterpri se  at_ _the_expense_o£ 
the  politicaLJntegrity  of  another  country,  and  particularly 
was  this  the  case  if  that  country  was  weak  and  needed  the 
fcelp  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  too  early  yet  to  form  judgment  on  Wilson's  leadership 
in  the  great  war  i*ut  it  may  be  truthfully  said  that  the  United 
States  was^never  neutral  with  respect  to  the  European  situa 
tion.  Woodrow  Wilson  saw  almost  from  the  beginning  that 
it  was  not  only  a  war  between  great  European  powers  but 
•was  primarily  a  war  bet\veen_twp  great  ideals — autocracy  and 
^democrac^.  llFlrneaht  to  see  that  the  issue  was  clearly  drawn, 
thaFTKepeojile  should  see__clearly  for  what  they  w_quldjbe 
"callec[  u^onjoj^ght.  He  had  this  in  mind  when  he  advocated 
a  league  of  nations  to  preserve  peace  and  when  he  asked  the 
belligerents  to  state  terms  upon  which  they  would  deem  it 

*>  Statement  of  President  Wikon,  March  18,  1913. 

44 


possible  to  make  peace.21  He  JidcLjhjaJLJmted_ States  aloof 
until  such_jioblc  and  vital_rights  and  princjples_liaiOcen_so 
futElessly  violated  that  all  men  of  all  ranks  in  the  United 
States  could  afford  to  fight  f6"~vTncIicate  them.  His  proposals 
for  a  league  to  enforce  peace  were"not  intended  for  service 
before  the  great  war  was  over.  Then  after  peace  was  made, 
a  union  of  nations  to  prevent  the  disturbance  of  the  world's 
peace  for  an  object  which  the  world's  opinion  does  not  sanc 
tion,  should  be  ready  to  serve  mankind.  He  meant  to  see  that 
such  a  plan  should  be  before  the  minds  of  the  people  in  ample 
time  for  discussion  and  crystallization. 

In  boldly  cutting  loose  from  the  policy  of  isolation  from 
European  affairs,  Wilson  did  the  unusual  thing — but  that  is 
characteristic  of  his  leadership.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  consis 
tency  of  means  with  him,  but  the  all  important  thing  with  him 
has  been  consistency  in  his  purpose  to  serve  humanity.  His 
vision  of  the  service  that  the  United  States  can  render  is  lim 
ited  only  by  her  capacity  and  opportunity  to  render  that  service. 

The  ruthless  GgrmajL  submarine  warfare  was  a  war  against 
humanity.  Ciyilizationjwas  at  stake,  theTnghts  of  man  were 
in  the  balance,  political  liberty  was  threatened. 

Under  the  leadership  of  Woodrow  Wilson,  the  United 
States  entered  the  Great  War  for  the  purpose  of  serving  hu 
manity.  Not  for  acquisition  of  territory,  not  for  self-aggrand 
izement,  not  for  material  gain  of  any  kind  whatever,  but  for 
"democracy,  for  the  right  of  those  who  submit  to  authority  to 
have  a  voice  in  their  own  government,  for  the  rights  and  lib 
erties  of  small  nations,  for  a  universal  dominion  of  right  by 
such  a  concert  of  free  people  as  shall  bring  rjeace  and  safety 
to  all  nations  and  make  the  world  itself  at  last  free.''23  And 
it  is  inspiring  to  believe  that  under  the  leadership  of  Woodrow 
Wilson — leadership  that  has  for  its  object  justice,  humanity 
and  peace — we  will  win. 

No  one  can  rightly  judge  Wilson's  leadership  without  know 
ing  the  interest  and  faith  he  has  in  the  average  man.  Speak 
ing  of  the  puqx>se~Q£^axejTimejrt  he  said,  "There  is  no  cause 
half  so  sacred  as  the  cause  of  the  people.  There  is  no  idea 
half  so  uplifting  as  the  idea  of  the  service  of  humanity.  There 
is  nothing  that  touches  the  springs  of  conscience  like  the  cause 
of  the  oppressed,  the  cause  of  those  who  suffer,  and  we  give 

21  Speech   to  the  League   to   Enforce   Peace,   May  27,   1916;   Note, 
State  Department,  to  the  belligerent  nations,  Dec.  18,  1916. 
*2  War  Speech,  Apr.  2t  1917. 

45 


not  only  our  sympathy  but  our  justice,  our  righteous  action 
for  them  .  .  .  the  thought  that  moves  me  is  that  government 
is  an  enterprise  of  mankind."23 

The  vitality  and  vigor  of  a  democracy  depends  upon  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  people.  It  is  not  the  genius  of  a  small 
class  that  determines  the  wholesome  and  vital  character  of  a 
nation  but  the  genius  which  springs  up  from  the  rank  of  the 
unknown  mass.  This  is  the  genius  that  renews  the  youth  and 
energy  of  a  people.  The  real  wisdom  of  human  life  is  com 
pounded  out  of  the  experience  of  ordinary  men.24 

'The  man  whose  judgment  will  tell  you  what  is  going  on 
is  the  ordinary  man  who  is  in  the  struggle."25  "I  would  rather 
hear  what  the  men  are  talking  about  on  the  trains  and  in  the 
shops  and  by  the  firesides  than  hear  anything  else,  because 
I  want  guidance,  and  I  know  I  could  get  it  there."28 

Again  emphasizing  his  faith  in  the  great  mass  of  people,  he 
said,  "We  should  believe  in  the  capacity  of  a  free  people  to 
see  their  own  interest  and  follow  it  when  told  the  truth  and 
given  leave  to  choose  disinterested  counsellors."27  And  to  the 
same  point  he  affirms,  "I  believe,  as  I  believe  in  nothing  else, 
in  the  average  integrity  and  average  intelligence  of  the  Ameri 
can  people."29 

To  Wilson  the  most  important  thing  in  determining  the  suc 
cessful  operation  of  a  government  is  good  leadership.  And 
he  has  a  very  definite  idea  where  to  fiiid_tliatjeadership.  "If 
you  want^ajeader.  don't  go  into_the  circle  where  everything 
is  established,  but  go  among  the  people.  In  every  crisis  Ameri- 
ca  will  find  its  leaders  there.  You  must  not  look  to  any 
special  class,  but  to  the~general  class."29  "What  America  has 
vindicated  above  all  things  else,  is  that  native  ability  has  noth 
ing  to  do  with  social  origin."30 

The  only  man  who  is  fit  to  speak  for  a  people  or  a  nation  is 
the  man  who  has  genuine  sympathy  with  the  mass  of  men  and 

"Speech  at  Madison  Square  Garden,  Oct.  31,  1912. 

"Flag  Day  Speech,  June  14,  1915.  Speech  to  New  York  Press  Club, 
June  30,  1916.  The  New  Freedom,  76,  290. 

*»  The  New  Freedom,  80. 

**  Address  to  World's  Salesmanship  Congress,  Detroit,  July  10, 
1916;  See  The  New  Freedom,  64. 

**  The  Spirit  of  Jefferson,  Princeton  Alumni  Weekly,  Apr.  28,  1906. 

*»  The  New  Freedom,  64. 

••Speech  to  Alumni  Association  of  Williams  College,  Feb.  5,  1909. 

*°  Speech  at  Berea  College  Meeting,  Washington,  D.  C,  Feb.  24,  1915 


who  has  a  real  insight  into  their  daily  lives,  their  needs,  and 
opportunities.81 

In  his  leadership  Wilson  has  attempted  to  make  a  constitu 
tional  government,  a  democracy,  function  in  the  most  effective 
and  serviceable  way.  He  has  brought  the  active,  planning 
will  of  each  part  of  the  government  into  accord  with  the  pre 
vailing  popular  thought  and  need,  and  has  thus  made  it  an 
impartial  instrument  of  national  development  and  expression. 
He  has  given  to  the  operation  of  the  government  thus  shaped 
by  his  leadership  under  the  influence  of  public  opinion  and 
adjusted  to  the  general  interests  of  the  people  both  stability 
and  incorruptible  efficacy.  *He  has  by  his  strength  of  person 
ality,  character,  conviction  and  practical  idealism,  introduced 
a  new  element  into  leadership  both  at  home  and  in'  foreign  af 
fairs — that  element  is  humanity. 


81  Letter  from  President  Wilson  to  Democrats  in  New  Jersey,  March> 
1918:  The  New  Freedom,  83. 


A  SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  WOODROW  WIL 
SON,  INCLUDING 
Bibliographies, 
Books  by  Woodrovv  Wilson, 
Articles  and  Miscellaneous  Addresses, 
Messages  and  Addresses  to  Congress, 
Messages  and  Addresses  to  New  Jersey  Legislature, 
Authorities. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 

American  Historical  Association.  Annual  report  for  1892. 
(A  partial  bibliography  of  Mr.  Wilson,  pp.  299-300.) 

Sewanee  Review,  Feb.,  1895,  vol.  3,  pp.  172-188.  The  work 
of  a  Southern  scholar.  (Ancestry,  biography,  and  bibli 
ography  of  Mr.  Wilson.) 

American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science.  Annals. 
Mar.,  1903,  vol.  21,  p.  294.  (List  of  published  writings 
of  Mr.  Wilson  since  1895.) 

Critic,  June,  1903,  vol.  42,  pp.  510-511.  Edwin  M.  Norris. 
Some  Writers  of  the  Princeton'  Faculty.  (Sketch  and 
select  bibliography  of  Mr.  Wilson,  pp.  510-511.) 

An^Essay  Towards  a  Bibliography  of  the  Published  Writings 
and  Addresses  of  Woodrow  Wilson,  1875-1910.  By  Har 
ry  demons,  Reference  Librarian.  Princeton.  The  Li 
brary  of  Princeton  University,  1913. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Circular.  New  series,  1915,  No. 
io.  December,  1915.  Publications  of  members  and  grad 
uates  of  the  departments  of  history,  political  economy,  and 
political  science,  1901-1915.  Wilson,  Woodrow,  pp.  102- 

IIO. 

An  Essay  Towards  a  Bibliography  of  the  Published  Writings 
and  Addresses  of  Woodrow  Wilson,  1875-1910.  By 
George  Dobbin  Brown,  Reference  Librarian.  Princeton. 
The  Library  of  Princeton  University,  1917. 

BOOKS  BY  WOODROW  WILSON 

An   Old    Master   and   Other    Political    Essays.     New    York, 

Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1893. 
Congressional   Government.      Boston,   Houghton,   Mifflin   and 

Company,  1879,  *&85- 
Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States.     New  York, 

Columbia  University  Press,  1908. 

48 


The  Real  Idea  of  Democracy, — A  chapter  in  Problems  in 
Modern  Democracy,  pp.  57-67.  Philadelphia,  Booklovers 
Library,  1901. 

Division  and  Reunion.  New  York,  Longmans,  Green  and 
Company,  1893. 

Free  Life,  The, — A  Baccalaureate  Address  at  Princeton  Uni 
versity,  June  9,  1907.  New  York,  T.  Y.  Crowell  and 
Company,  1908. 

George  Washington.    New  York,  Harper  and  Brothers,  1897. 

A  History  of  the  American  People.  New  York,  Harper  and 
Brothers,  1902;  5  vols. 

Leaderless  Government, — Annual  Address  before  the  Virgin 
ia  Bar  Association,  1897.  Richmond,  James  E.  Good 
Printing  Company,  1897. 

Mere  Literature  and  Other  Essays.  Boston,  Houghton,  Mif- 
flin  and  Company,  1896. 

New  Freedom,  The.  New  York,  Doubleday,  Page  and  Com 
pany,  1913. 

The  State.     Boston,  D.  C.  Heath  and  Company,  1889.     1904. 

When  a  Man  Comes  to  Himself.  New  York,  Harper  and 
Brothers,  1901. 

ARTICLES  AND  MISCELLANEOUS  ADDRESSES  BY 
WOODROW  WILSON 

Cabinet  Government  in  the  United  States.  International  Re 
view,  Aug.,  1879,  vol.  7,  pp.  146-163. 

Committee  or  Cabinet  Government?  Overland  Monthly,  Jan., 
1884,  series  2,  vol.  3,  pp.  17-33. 

The  Study  of  Administration.  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
.  June,  1887,  vol.  2,  pp.  197-222. 

Democracy  and  Efficiency.  Atlantic  Monthly,  Mar.,  1901,  vol. 
87,  pp.  289-299. 

When  A  Man  Comes  To  Himself.  Century  Magazine,  June, 
1901,  vol.  62,  pp.  268-275. 

Edmund  Burke  and  the  French  Revolution.  Century  Maga 
zine,  Sept.,  1901,  vol.  62,  pp.  784-792. 

The  Ideals  of  America.  Atlantic  Monthly,  Dec.,  1902,  vol. 
90,  pp.  721-734. 

The  Spirit  of  Jefferson.     Princeton  Alumni  Weekly,  Apr.,  28, 

1906,  vol.  6,  no.  29,  pp.  551-554- 

The  Author  and  Signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

North  American  Review,  Sept.,  1907,  vol.  186,  pp.  22-23. 
Politics.      (1857-1907.)      Atlantic   Monthly,   Nov.,    1907,   vol. 

100,  pp.  635-646. 
Ideals  of  Public  Life.     Princeton  Alumni  Weekly,  Nov.  27, 

1907,  vol.  7,  no.  10,  pp.  160-162. 

The  Centenary  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  Princeton  Alumni 
Weekly,  Feb.  17,  1909,  vol.  9,  no.  19,  pp.  296-298. 

Civic  Problems;  Address  delivered  Mar.  9,  1909,  at  the  an 
nual  meeting  of  the  Civic  League  of  St.  Louis.  Prince- 

49 


ton  Alumni  Weekly,  Mar.  17,  1909,  vol.  9,  no.  23,  p.  359. 
The    TaritY   Make-Believe.      North   American    Review,    Oct., 

1909,  vol.  190,  pp.  535-556. 

Mr.  Cleveland  as  President.  (Address  delivered  Mar.  18, 
1910.)  National  Democratic  Club,  New  York.  Annual 
dinner  on  the  birthday  of  Grover  Cleveland,  March 
eighteenth,  nineteen  hundred  and  ten,  at  the  club  house. 
n.p.,  (1910),  PP.  29-34. 

Living  Principles  of  Democracy.     Harper's  Weekly,  Apr.  9, 

1910,  vol.  54,  pp.  9-10. 

Hide-and-Seek  Politics.  North  American  Review,  May,  1910, 
vol.  191,  pp.  585-601- 

Speech  at  meeting  of  Federation  of  Democratic  Clubs  in  Penn 
sylvania  held  at  Harrisburg,  June  15,  1911.  Congres 
sional  Record,  62d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  v.  48,  app.  519-520. 

True  Americanism.  Philadelphia  North  American,  July  5, 
1911. 

For  Government  by  the  People.     Harper's  Weekly,  Dec.  9, 

1911,  V.  55:  20. 

Speech  of  Governor  Wilson  accepting  the  Democratic  nomi 
nation  for  President  of  the  United  States.  62d  Cong. 
2d  sess.  Senate  Doc.  903. 

The  New  Freedom:  a  call  for  the  emancipation  of  the  gener 
ous  energies  of  a  people.  (Page  &  Company,  1913.) 
Compiled  by  W.  B.  Hale  from  the  stenographic  reports 
of  the  author's  campaign  speeches. 

The  New  Freedom  appeared  first  in  the  World's  Work, 
Jan.-July,  1913,  v.  25:  252-264,  421-430,  540-551,  628- 
640;  v.  26:  59-68,  182-189,  302-309. 

Letter  to  A.  Mitchell  Palmer  relative  to  the  presidential  term. 
Dated  Feb.  5,  1913,  in  the  Congressional  Record,  and 
Feb.  13,  1913,  in  The  New  York  Times.  Congressional 
Record,  64th  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  v.  53:  12620. 

Celebration  of  the  rededication  of  Congress  Hall.  Congres 
sional  Record,  63d  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  v.  50:  5809-5810. 
63d  Cong.,  ist  sess.  House  Doc.  272. 

President  Wilson  on  the  United  States  and  Latin  America. 
Address  before  the  Southern  Commercial  Congress  at 
Mobile,  Ala.,  Oct.  27,  1913.  (Boston,  World  Peace  Foun 
dation,  1913.  Pamphlet  series,  v.  III.) 

President  Wilson  on  his  Foreign  Policy.  World's  Work, 
Oct.  1914,  v.  28:  485-494. 

Address  at  Indianapolis,  Ind.,  Jan.  8,  1915.  Congressional 
Record,  63d  Cong.,  3d  sess.,  v.  52:  1279-1282. 

Address  delivered  at  the  first  annual  assemblage  of  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace,  May  27,  1916.  Congressional  Record, 
64th  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  v.  53,  8854,  and  app.  1069-1070. 

In  Our  First  Year  of  the  War, — Messages  and  Addresses  to 
Congress  and  the  People,  March  5,   1917,  to  January  8, 
1918,    by    Woodrow    Wilson, ^President "of    the    United 
^States.     New  York,  Harper  and  Brothers,  1918. 

50 


/President  Wilson's  Great  Speeches  and  other  History  Making 
Documents.  Chicago,  Stanton  and  Van  Vliet  Company, 

19I7- 

Wit  and  Wisdom  of  Woodrow  Wilson,  Extracts  from  Public 
Speeches  by  Richard  Linthicum.  New  York,  Doublcday, 
Page  and  Company,  1913. 

MESSAGES  TO  CONGRESS  BY  PRESIDENT  WILSON 

Inaugural   Address   delivered  at  the   Capitol,   Mar.   4,    1913. 

(New  York)  Priv.  print.     (The  Scribner  Press)   1913. 
Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of 
Congress  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  session  of  the  Sixty- 
third  Congress,  Apr.  8,  1913.    Congressional  Record,  63d 
Cong.,  ist  sess.,  v.  50:  130. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  June  23,  1913.  Congressional  Record,  63d  Cong., 
ist  sess.,  v.  50:  2132-2133,  and  pp.  2142-2143. 
Mexican  Affairs.  Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the 
two  houses  of  Congress,  Aug.  27,  1913.  Congressional 
Record,  63d  Cong.,  ist  sess.,  v.  50:  3803-3804.  Also  pp. 
3825-3826. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  Dec.  2,  1913.  Congressional  Record,  63d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  v.  51:  43-45-  Also  pp.  74-76. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  Jan.  20,  1914.  Congressional  Record,  63d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  v.  51 :  1962-1964.  Also  pp.  1978-1979. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  Mar.  5,  1914.  Congressional  Record,  63d  Cong.,  2d 
sess.,  v.  51 :  4312-4313.  Also  p.  4346. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  Apr.  20,  1914.  Congressional  Record,  63d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  v.  51 :  6908-6909.  Also  p.  6925. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  Sept.  4,  1914.  Congressional  Record,  63d  Cong., 
2d  sess.,  v.  51:  14712-14713.  Also  pp.  14738-14739. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  Dec.  7,  1915.  Congressional  Record,  64th  Cong., 
ist  sess.,  v.  53:  95-100. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  Apr.  19,  1916.  Congressional  Record,  64th  Cong., 
ist  sess.,  v.  53:  6421-6422,  and  6448-6449. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  Aug.  29,  1916.  Congressional  Record,  64th  Cong., 
ist  sess.,  v.  53:  J3335-I3337,  and  13361-13363. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  Dec.  5,  1916.  New  York  Times,  Dec.  6,  191 6,j  p.  3. 

Address  delivered  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  Jan.  22, 
1917.  Independent,  Feb.  5,  1917,  v.  89:  224-225. 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con- 

51 


gross,  Feb.  3,  1917.     Independent,  Feb.  12,  1917,  v.  89: 

257- 

Address  delivered  at  a  joint  session  of  the  two  houses  of  Con 
gress,  Feb.  26,  1917.  Independent,  Mar.  5,  1917,  v.  89: 
396. 

ADDRESSES  AND  MESSAGES  TO  THE  NEW  JERSEY 
LEGISLATURE  BY  GOVERNOR  WILSON 

Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Mar.  20,  1911.  Jour 
nal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1911,  p.  397. 

Message  to  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey,  Mar.  20,  1911. 
Journal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1911,  p.  401. 

Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Mar.  31,  1911.  Jour 
nal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1911,  pp.  602-603. 

Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Apr.  4,  1911.  Jour 
nal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1911,  pp.  639-640. 

Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Apr.  12,  1911.  Jour 
nal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1911,  pp.  768-770. 

Message  to  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey,  Apr.  19,  1911. 
Journal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1911,  pp.  975- 
97°. 

Message  to  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey,  Feb.  26,  1912. 
Journal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1912,  pp.  261- 
262. 

Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Mar.  14,  1912.  Jour 
nal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1912,  pp.  569-570. 

Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Mar.  25,  1912.  Jour 
nal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1912,  p.  814. 

Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Mar.  25,  1912.  Jour 
nal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1912,  pp.  814-816. 

Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Mar.  28,  1912.  Jour 
nal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1912,  pp.  940-941. 

Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Apr.  2,  1912.  Journal 
of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1912,  pp.  997-998. 

Sixteen  veto  messages  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Apr.  2, 

1912.  Journal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1912,  pp. 
998-1010. 

Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  Apr.  n,  1912,  Journal 
of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1912,  p.  1031. 

Second  annual  message  to  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey, 
Jan.  14,  1913.  Journal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for 

1913.  PP-  7-*  7-    New  York  Times,  Jan.  15,  1913,  p.  24. 
Farewell  speech  to  the  New  Jersey  Senators,  Trenton,  Jan. 

28,  1913.     New  York  Times,  Jan.  29,  1913,  p.  7. 
Message  to  the  President  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  trans 
mitting  the  report  of  the  employers'  liability  commission, 
Feb.  n,  1913.    Journal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for 

I9I3>  P-  159- 

Message  to  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey,  transmitting  the 
report  of  the  commission  of  seven  on  the  consolidation 

52 


of  state  agencies,  Feb.  18,  1913.     Journal  of  the  Senate 

of  New  Jersey  for  1913,  pp.  273-274. 
Statement  to  the  New  Jersey  Legislatore  on  anti-trust  laws, 

Trenton,  Feb.  20,  1913.    New  York  Times,  Feb.  21,  1913, 

p.  12. 
Message  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey,  announcing  resignation. 

Undated.    Journal  of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1913, 

Feb.  25,  p.  413. 
Message  to  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey.    Undated.    Journal 

of  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  for  1913,  Feb.  25,  pp.  413- 

414. 

AUTHORITIES 

Ford,  H.  J.,  Woodrow  Wilson,  the  Man  and  His  Work. 
New  York,  D.  Appleton  and  Company,  1916. 

Harris,  H.  W.,  President  Wilson,  from  an  English  Point  of 
View.  New  York,  Frederick  A.  Stokes  and  Company, 
1917. 

Robinson,  E.  E.  and  West,  V.,  The  Foreign  Policy  of  Wood- 
row  Wilson.  New  York,  The  Macmillan  Company,  1917. 


"    -7    'J 
53 


14  DAY  USE 

RETUHN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 

Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


BECDLD  FEB     873-1  PM2  8 


ff!IT  HAY  1  o  '97 


[pro,  cut   APR  * '75 


I 


,  MAY  »  °  1999 


DEC  1  6  EL, 

• 


RECEIVED 


BY 


CIRCIIUTION  DEPf. 


LD21A-40m-3,'72 
(Qll738lO)476-A-32  Berkley 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


